Educational opportunities (EO) refer to access and availability of resources that enable individuals to develop skills, knowledge, and abilities necessary for personal and professional development. EO are especially crucial for youth and children, as a deficiency in these opportunities can affect on their cognitive and social-emotional development (Heckman et al., 2013). Consequently, addressing educational inequalities during childhood and adolescence is essential for breaking cycles of disadvantage and fostering a more equitable society. Disparities in learning opportunities primarily affect those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds (OECD, 2017; Behtoui, 2019). Early unequal EO lead to long-term impacts, including reduced employability, lower salaries, and increased social exclusion (Carneiro & Heckman, 2003). 

The literature has identified several factors contributing to EO inequalities among young people, including socioeconomic background (Boonk et al., 2018), parental education level (Brunello & Checchi, 2005), quality of schools (Jennings et al., 2015), and living environment conditions (Nieuwenhuis & Hooimeijer, 2016). 

Inequalities in EO are closely related to educational poverty (EP), a concept that emerged in the late 1990s within the social sciences. This concept arose from a new understanding of poverty based on its recognition as a multidimensional phenomenon, leading to a new phase of research (Sen & Anand, 1997). This evolution emphasized the importance of considering both economic and educational factors in poverty discourse and shifted the conceptualization of EP to an essential component of human poverty. Consequently, these changes have prompted increased institutional and political attention to EP at both European and national levels, highlighting its significance as a societal issue. Initiatives such as the European Union’s Child Guarantee program and legislative interventions in Italy demonstrate a growing recognition of the need to address educational disadvantage to ensure social inclusion and equality. 

Like other complex phenomena, EP involves multiple dimensions that are not readily observable, making it difficult to define and measure comprehensively. How we define and measure EP affects its recognition, extent, and severity, influencing policy decisions and strategies to reduce vulnerability. Therefore, efforts to define and measure EP must be closely aligned with policy interventions to address issues with significant social impact. From unidimensional approaches focusing on educational qualifications and competencies to multidimensional frameworks considering socio-economic and context-related factors (Battilocchi, 2020), there is still a lack of consensus on how to define and measure EP effectively. A significant step toward a comprehensive definition of EP was made by Save the Children in their report La lampada di Aladino (2014). EP is defined as ‘the deprivation of children and adolescents from the opportunity to learn, experience, develop, and freely cultivate their capabilities, talents, and aspirations’ (p. 4). Drawing on Sen’s capabilities theory and Nussbaum’s development framework (2011), Save the Children’s definition (2015) includes four dimensions of educational deprivation: 1) learning to understand, which is related to cognitive and problem-solving skills; 2) learning to be, which involves psychological and emotional development; 3) learning to live together, which entails the ability to promote social and inter-personal relationships; 4) learning to lead an autonomous and active life involving aspects like health, physical integrity, and food security, which are regarded as functional conditions for education and other learning opportunities. 

Within this framework, EP is viewed as a deprivation of EO that hinders personal development. This deprivation impacts cultural resources, cognitive abilities, emotional and relational aspects, and life planning, all of which shape the developmental trajectory of minors (Battilocchi, 2020). 

Building on these considerations, our work aims to contribute to the ongoing debate by introducing a novel measure of EP at the individual level. Specifically, we propose a measurement strategy employing a set of indicators to assess the EO available to students across multiple critical domains in which they are embedded. This approach helps define the structure of opportunity constraints concerning educational resources. Further, it allows evaluating the impact of different contexts on learning opportunities and defining a multidimensional measure of EP. The conceptual proposal described in Section 2 is carried out on a convenience sample (Section 3) of 191 Naples’s high school students aged between 16 and 19. This case study serves as a crucial validation of the proposed measure of EP, enabling an optimal configuration of dimensions and indicators useful for measuring EP through a combination of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For lack of space, in this paper (Section 4) we will only present the CFA results that verify the significance of the dimensional structure discovered by EFA and confirm dimensions and indicators defined in the conceptual section.