Teaching in Rome Is No Longer a Middle-Class Job. By Luciano Di GregorioIn Rome, teaching still carries a certain social weight. It sounds respectable. Serious. Necessary. For many families, it still registers as a solid, middle-class profession, one that promises stability and a modest but workable life. That idea lingers. The reality has changed. For school teachers in particular, the gap between expectation and experience has widened. Salaries have moved slowly. Career progression is long and uneven. Permanent contracts often arrive late, after years of temporary placements and relocations. A dear friend of mine has been on successive supplenze for years, teaching full time without the security that is supposed to follow experience. Each September brings the same question of where they will be sent next, and on what terms. At the same time, the cost of living in Rome has risen steadily, especially housing. The result is not a dramatic collapse, but a squeeze that reshapes who can afford to stay. A newly hired state school teacher in Italy earns roughly the same whether they are posted in Rome, Bari, or a provincial town in Abruzzo. The difference is what that salary buys. In Rome, rent alone can absorb half a monthly income, sometimes more. A modest one-bedroom apartment easily costs €900 to €1,100, before bills. In second-tier cities, or smaller regional centres, that figure often drops by several hundred euros. The pay is flat. The expenses are not. This matters because teaching salaries do not stretch. Net monthly pay for early-career teachers often sits around €1,300 to €1,500. Even with more experience, the increases are incremental. In cities with lower rents and shorter commutes, that income still allows a degree of independence. In Rome, it often does not. The same job produces two very different lives. What follows is not mass departure, but attrition. Some teachers manage because they have family nearby, inherited housing, or a partner with a higher income. Others rely on tutoring, evening work, or summer contracts to make ends meet. Many share apartments well into their thirties and forties. None of this is unusual anymore. It has simply become part of the profession. Rome intensifies the problem because it attracts people willing to compromise. Teaching here feels meaningful. There is cultural capital attached to it. Schools draw committed educators from across Italy and even abroad. But meaning does not pay rent. Over time, idealism runs up against arithmetic. The longer teachers remain on temporary contracts, the harder it becomes to plan a life. Moving becomes risky. Starting a family feels delayed. Leaving the profession begins to look less like failure and more like pragmatism. Those who do leave are rarely the least capable. They are often the ones who cannot afford to wait. This has consequences inside classrooms. When teaching becomes financially fragile, it filters who enters and who stays. People without a safety net are less likely to persist through years of precarity. Continuity suffers. Experience drains away, replaced by turnover and short-term appointments. Schools adapt, but the cost is borne by staff and students alike. The language surrounding teaching has not helped. It is still framed as a vocation, something sustained by dedication rather than conditions. That framing makes it harder to talk honestly about money. But commitment alone cannot compensate for structural imbalance; not indefinitely, in any case. None of this means teaching has lost its value. If anything, its social importance has increased. Schools are asked to do more, often with fewer resources. But value and viability are not the same thing. A system that depends on personal sacrifice will eventually narrow who can afford to participate. Rome makes this tension visible because it sits at the intersection of cultural prestige and economic pressure. It asks teachers to accept the city’s rewards while absorbing its costs. For some, that exchange still works. For others, it does not. Teaching in Rome is not broken. But it is no longer the stable middle-class job many still imagine. It requires patience and resilience. What it increasingly does not provide is financial footing. And that reality is reshaping the profession, not through protest or collapse, but through who is able to remain.

By Luciano Di Gregorio In Rome, teaching still carries a certain social weight. It sounds respectable. Serious. Necessary. For many families, it still registers as a solid, middle-class profession, one that promises stability and a modest but workable life. That idea lingers. The reality has changed. For school teachers in particular, the gap between expectation and experience has widened. Salaries have moved slowly. Career progression is long and uneven. Permanent contracts often arrive late, after years of temporary placements and relocations. A dear friend of mine has been on successive supplenze for years, teaching full time without the security that is supposed to follow experience. Each September brings the same question of where they will be sent next, and on what terms. At the same time, the cost of living in Rome has risen steadily, especially housing. The result is not a dramatic collapse, but a squeeze that reshapes who can afford to stay. A newly hired state school teacher in Italy earns roughly the same whether they are posted in Rome, Bari, or a provincial town in Abruzzo. The difference is what that salary buys. In Rome, rent alone can absorb half a monthly income, sometimes more. A modest one-bedroom apartment easily costs €900 to €1,100, before bills. In second-tier cities, or smaller regional centres, that figure often drops by several hundred euros. The pay is flat. The expenses are not. This matters because teaching salaries do not stretch. Net monthly pay for early-career teachers often sits around €1,300 to €1,500. Even with more experience, the increases are incremental. In cities with lower rents and shorter commutes, that income still allows a degree of independence. In Rome, it often does not. The same job produces two very different lives. What follows is not mass departure, but attrition. Some teachers manage because they have family nearby, inherited housing, or a partner with a higher income. Others rely on tutoring, evening work, or summer contracts to make ends meet. Many share apartments well into their thirties and forties. None of this is unusual anymore. It has simply become part of the profession. Rome intensifies the problem because it attracts people willing to compromise. Teaching here feels meaningful. There is cultural capital attached to it. Schools draw committed educators from across Italy and even abroad. But meaning does not pay rent. Over time, idealism runs up against arithmetic. The longer teachers remain on temporary contracts, the harder it becomes to plan a life. Moving becomes risky. Starting a family feels delayed. Leaving the profession begins to look less like failure and more like pragmatism. Those who do leave are rarely the least capable. They are often the ones who cannot afford to wait. This has consequences inside classrooms. When teaching becomes financially fragile, it filters who enters and who stays. People without a safety net are less likely to persist through years of precarity. Continuity suffers. Experience drains away, replaced by turnover and short-term appointments. Schools adapt, but the cost is borne by staff and students alike. The language surrounding teaching has not helped. It is still framed as a vocation, something sustained by dedication rather than conditions. That framing makes it harder to talk honestly about money. But commitment alone cannot compensate for structural imbalance; not indefinitely, in any case. None of this means teaching has lost its value. If anything, its social importance has increased. Schools are asked to do more, often with fewer resources. But value and viability are not the same thing. A system that depends on personal sacrifice will eventually narrow who can afford to participate. Rome makes this tension visible because it sits at the intersection of cultural prestige and economic pressure. It asks teachers to accept the city’s rewards while absorbing its costs. For some, that exchange still works. For others, it does not. Teaching in Rome is not broken. But it is no longer the stable middle-class job many still imagine. It requires patience and resilience. What it increasingly does not provide is financial footing. And that reality is reshaping the profession, not through protest or collapse, but through who is able to remain.