Introduction

Internationally, the duty to listen to children and adolescents is widely recognized (art.12, CRC). Nevertheless, this duty is often violated (Lundy, 2007; Reynaert et al., 2009; Sinclair, 2004), especially as concerns the most vulnerable children, often also subjected to a variety of forms of discrimination or violence (General Comment no 12, 2009, UN Committee, 2009; Council of Europe Priorities, 2016–2021). These individuals are most likely to enter the protective system (Vis et al., 2012; van Bijleveled et al., 2015; Dillon et al., 2016; Cossar et al., 2016; Kennan et al., 2019). A striking illustration of this phenomenon can be seen in residential care settings for children and adolescents. In these settings educational styles are based on a cultural legacy deriving from their history. While the residential care sector has been deinstitutionalized on a structural and formal level, on an operational level at times it is characterized by institutionalizing or institutionalizing educational interventions. In accordance with a care-based approach, the latter reduces the opportunities for active participation of children and adolescents in educational planning (Zullo et al., 2008; Ronga & Bastianoni, 2018). The institutional paradigm has always focused on adapting the behavior of the child or adolescent to a reference model. This model is historically represented by the "total" institutions observed by Spritz, Bowly, Rutter, who contributed to highlighting, at a global level, the heavy negative consequences of these systems on development outcomes of the children population subjected to this type of intervention. The most recent research shows no different results. At the opposite. We found strong negative associations between institutional care and children’s development, especially in relation to physical growth, cognition, and attention. Significant but smaller associations were found between institutionalization and socioemotional development and mental health (Van IJzendoorn et al., 2020). From a psychodynamic point of view, these results would be justified through the absence of an intervention based on an interpersonal approach to children and young people in residential and semi-residential settings. This means not corresponding to relational needs, but privileging the person's adaptation, from a behavioral point of view, to a same model pursued (Smith, 2009). Instead, favoring a relational model, based on the co-construction of meanings, would lead to the diffusion of an educational approach in which the minor person welcomed is the active subject of the intervention, which as such must necessarily be individualized and constructed step by step, day by day with a relationally significant adult and not for the child/adolescent taken into care.

A major characteristic of institutionalizing styles of educational intervention is self-referral (Bastianoni & Ronga, 2022). Individualized educational design, which forms the backbone (core) of residential and semi-residential child care settings, reflects the connotations that distinguish this method of intervention. Thus, traditional individualized educational planning in such settings can result in a tool that serves primarily to satisfy bureaucratic and formal requirements, overshadowing the educational and relational objectives. As a result, the latter is mostly viewed by individuals in these settings as a duty and/or an obligation. Additionally, caregivers are used to approaching. Individualized Educational Planning (IEP) with concern, formality, and a detached attitude, as they tend to view it as a kind of agenda containing regulations, deadlines, and institutional mandates rather than as a tool to support the child or adolescent they care for on a daily basis (Bastianoni & Baiamonte, 2014). In these cases, the IEP is drafted but is , then, almost always forgotten, thus failing in its purpose of supporting, promoting and constantly enhancing the educational intervention (Traverso, 2020).

From the psycho-educational standpoint the educational project runs the risk of becoming an empty and extemporaneous document, merely a copy of another project, thereby squandering its characteristic of uniqueness which is tailored to the child to whom it is addressed. Often, this occurs as a result of setting general and long-term goals in accordance with expected developmental "purposes" that are recognized as normative. The drift of this approach, however, is to require an adjustment of the child or adolescent to the educational project, rather than vice versa, which essentially eliminates the process of co-constructing a project on the basis of real listening and the subsequent reading and decoding of specific needs resulting from real listening. Among the reasons for the failure of IEP is a combination of generalized and generalizing goals at times lacking the concrete actions necessary to achieve them on a practical level of day-to-day living. Very often, for example, there are educational projects that aim to achieve certain objectives, such as getting through the school year, overcoming anger and extinguishing inappropriate behavior, promoting socialization etc. However, these projects lack the definition of how to achieve these macro-objectives, which, although valid, risk being lost in everyday life since the specific actions with which they intend to achieve them are not defined (for example: passing the school year should be translated, in concrete terms, with an action based on the constant accompaniment of the child, who must be supported daily in carrying out his schoolwork, and so for each objective). As can be understood from these examples, the educational project would be characterized by a constant co-construction of the life project, which requires, on the other hand, mutual commitment and an approach eminently on the part of the operator who punctually accompanies the boy in his developmental and life-course tasks (Tibollo, 2015).

Furthermore, when educational projects are implemented in a self-referential manner, power dynamics may be triggered. From this perspective, the educator is symbolically the sole repository of knowledge who controls and writes "of," "about," and "for" children and adolescents without their actual involvement and without the opportunity for them to listen effectively. Nevertheless, this attitude can result in children and adolescents experiencing feelings of subordination, non-acceptance, and powerlessness. This reaffirms their emotional backgrounds and experiences of the past, which are reflected in passive, oppositional, or irritating behavior toward the educators and the project itself.

This aspect is closely related to the linguistic register used by caregivers when develo** an IEP. As a result, it is often found that the latter is weakened by technicalities that make the content incomprehensible to children and young people, even though it directly impacts on them. As a result of these arrangements, an IEP can only greatly reduce - if not completely eliminate - the possibility of a direct participation of children and adolescents and their involvement in the education process. This is evident from the broad use of terminology such as passive, aggressive, immature, fragile, which describe personality traits rather than contextualized behaviors. This is because there is often a marked tendency to interpret the facts or difficulties of children from a psychological perspective. Having a tendency to psychologize leads to the belief that deviant behavior is a symptom of an individual's character (Bastianoni & Baiamonte, 2014). Overestimating psychological determinants allows the practitioner to protect himself from possible failures. However, it also implies losing the drive for change and giving up on bringing out the potential inherent in each individual. This amounts to a betrayal of the essence of education. Indeed, remaining faithful to an educational perspective and its meaning, educere, that is "bringing out", means consciously and intentionally renouncing the "top down" attributional processes of pre-established categories to an identity under construction, to the full of an approach capable of gras** what is not yet visible but which could potentially flourish and manifest itself. Fundamental, therefore, from this point of view, is the positive redefinition of the objectives that can be pursued, starting from the child, his specific needs, his potential and not from what, according to the adult's point of view, the adult is not adequate and which is attributed, implicitly as a "trait" or fundamental characteristic of the person to whom it is reduced through a stigmatizing process.

Lastly, it is worthwhile emphasizing that educational projects are often subject to distortions due to the tendency on the part of the writer to interpret every fact based on their own experience, neglecting the empirical and directly observable dimensions of behavior. As a consequence, the child's needs are not met, strengths are not enhanced, and critical issues are not addressed.

As part of this framework (Bastianoni, 2000; Bastianoni et al., 2012), it is important to highlight the persistent problem of a lack of an effective evaluation process for interventions and educational projects in residential and semi-residential settings (Bullock et al., 2006; Whittaker et al., 2016). There are a variety of reasons for this, including the lack of tools (Marchesini et al., 2019), or the lack of shared methodologies (Palareti, 2003; Palareti et al., 2006; Marchesini et al. 2019), or the lack of a common vision as to how to establish a common network (Munro, 2019). The latter aspect also stresses, in a broader sense, the inability to communicate/share information between residential settings and the network of actors from various institutional settings - school, social services, court-family, and so on - that contribute to the protection system (Ronga & Bastianoni, 2018).

As a function of what has been found so far, it is necessary to implement a model of educational planning with a strong participatory character, which is capable, on the one hand, of ensuring a real listening to children and adolescents; on the other hand, ensuring a constant evaluation of educational actions is maintained so as to counteract drifts resulting from a protection system that is - indirectly - inclined to attribute failures to those who receive the intervention. This, in conclusion, would allow the child, or adolescent inserted into the protection system not by his/her own will, to regain control over his/her life, favoring a model of co-construction of the path in which he/she is inserted. Co-construction ultimately means building "together", "doing with" the other, in an eminently relational perspective, capable of restoring the profound meaning that motivates daily actions to achieve life goals. An educational model based on co-construction, fundamentally, implies abandoning the emotional distance to the child of istituctional model while maintaining an asymmetry linked to professionalism, in favor of emotional closeness and reciprocity of the intervention. This is the prerequisite for giving the child/adolescent a real space to listen him/her, and negotiate the decisions that directly concern him, generating consensus, and, to the extent possible, choice. This allows the child/adolescent to restore real space within which to exercise the power of self-determination in the process of protection, becoming an actor and protagonist of the process against the logic of delegation and passive use of the intervention. One of the main results of this approach is the motivation demonstrated by children/adolescents to pursue daily activities within residential and semi-residential care settings, which are ultimately fundamental to achieving long-term life goals and, complessivity, the success of the intervention. The right to the young people to participate in decisions affecting them enhances children’s self extreme and confidence, promotes their overall capacities, and produces better outcomes (Lansdown, 2005).

Conceptual Assumptions and Methodological Criteria

The individualized educational planning we present is based on a model initiated by Le Poultier (1990), and taken up by Bastianoni and colleagues (1996), Bastianoni (2000) and Bastianoni and Baiamonte 2014). It is necessary to read this model, which is operationalized through the tool of personalized educational planning, through the theoretical framework of GTA - global therapeutic environment - (Winnicott, 1965; Bettelheim, 1950; Redl & Wineman, 1951). Emiliani and Bastianoni (2013) propose a conceptual framework for GTA and development based on interactive-constructivist principles in connection with relational approaches to the educational style (Bastianoni et al., 2016). As a result of daily living and the IEP, a central scaffolding function is fulfilled: "significant" adults operating in a residential or semiresidential daily living environment must perform structuring and supporting activities, i.e., creating conditions in which the individuals accommodated may perform tasks, overcome criticalities, acquire skills and mature knowledge that would not be possible otherwise. These actions provide conditions and opportunities for welcomed persons to strengthen their self-esteem in the face of failures and setbacks. Redefining and re-signifying the self and others in a positive sense is dependent upon these actions, on a symbolic level.

According to this theoretical framework, the model of educational planning that we propose must be applied by following at least five basic criteria listed here in a synoptic manner.

  • Providing systematic time and space for listening

As well as serving as a systematic and daily reference, IEPs should provide a "space" for listening. A caregiver who takes the time to meet with the child/youth or adolescent to complete or consult the form (which we will illustrate later), can thus interject and decipher specific needs and situations. Additionally, they should reinforce the relationship through the presence of a caregiver who prefigures themselves as a significant person in a stable, regular, reliable, familiar, and constant manner. According to a psychodynamic perspective, attentive to the effective and relational dimension of the intervention, it has been observed that only through daily interactions it is possible to disturb the early relational models internalized by minors in life context unfavorable to development. On the basis of IWM, representational models of oneself, others, the world and relationships are built, heavily influencing the minor’s behavior and contributing to personal successes/failures in everyday life. In residential and semi-residential care contexts, therefore, one should aim primarily at the co-construction of a significant relationship capable of providing alternative and corrective experiences, which depend, to a large extent, on the dedication in time and on the quality of the approach to the child/adolescent by the adult with whom the intervention is co-constructed. Guaranteeing a stable, regular and reliable setting symbolically guarantees the minor the possibility of internalizing alternative relational/educational models compared to those previously internalized (frightening, disorganized/disorganized/unpredictable) and which undermine the assumptions on which to base the sense of trust and security. Providing systematic time and space for listening, symbolically, this facilitates the co-construction of trust and predictability/reliability of the overall intervention over time.

  • "We are together": the relationship and co-responsibility dimension of the outcome

Continuing from the previous point, individualized educational planning should be implemented within a relational/interpersonal framework, and co-responsibility should be shared for the successful outcome of the intervention. In the IEP, the child's (or adolescent's) actions are outlined to achieve goals, and appropriate educational actions are outlined to support those goals. Incorporating the latter into the IEP allows for self-monitoring and ongoing evaluation of one's progress. Essentially, this approach counteracts the drift of a self-referential and institutionalizing educational approach which tends to reduce the IEP to a tool for imposing rules, norms, homologation, control/verification, which is focused on the child and what he/she has done/not done. Numerous studies demonstrate that the absence of a relational approach in residential care contexts tends to promote the minor's adoption of socially appreciable behaviors in the short term, as well as the development of a false self. (Palareti et al., 2020). The institutional approach, in fact, tends to reduce the responsibility of the minor in building his own life path, as he is called upon to respond only formally to the demands imposed and perceived as such in the absence of a significant relationship. decisions, experienced as heteronomous and, therefore, impossible to counteract, promote an external locus of control, negatively impacting planning capabilities, two protective factors capable of promoting resilience (Costantino, & Camuffo, 2009).

  • "Goals that can be achieved" and self-resignification

By promoting and achieving a set of goals that are truly sustainable for the individual taking charge, individualized educational planning is intended to counteract the negative image of those who are the target of educational intervention, often characterized by histories of repeated failures and setbacks. The achievement of goals contributes to the development of self-efficacy, self-image as a competent individual "capable of" achieving something important for himself or herself, and, more generally, self-esteem (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003; Spencer et al., 1993; Baumeister et al., 2003). Being successful in achieving results contributes to redefining the self-image built on a specific or cumulative history of relational/social/educational failures etc.

  • Translation of goals into observable characteristics and graduality

Setting gradual goals is essential. By applying this criterion, it is possible to achieve goals that are ordinarily unsuccessful or frustrating, since they elicit overt, distress as well as a sense of paralyzing impotence. In this sense, it is necessary to deconstruct general goals (e.g., working on aggression and violent behavior) by proceeding step by step, that is, from immediately sustainable aspects that do not relate to general distress or dysfunctionality even if they are related to them ("learning to recognize when I become angry/lose control"). By deconstructing the main problem, it is necessary to operationalize goals (often conceptual, such as "stress management," "emotional regulation," or too general—like "save the school year" and so on) into concrete, everyday, directly observable behaviors (see Casework below). This point is directly connected to the previous one: children or adolescents often fail in the pursuit/achievement of objectives because these are defined on general development expectations and not on the specific skills/skills/abilities or potential of the minor to be considered day a long development process day after day. The request to achieve long-term objectives without a gradual approach and shared actions leaves children in a state of discouragement, confusion and distrust which emotionally hinders the achievement of the objectives themselves.

  • Participants, process, and sharing

The implementation of individualized educational planning involves a series of procedural steps. First, the educational team must define a set of goals to be incorporated into the IEP. These goals will be in line with the institutional goals originally outlined by the social service agency proposing the case. The second step is to co-construct with individuals receiving services in residential settings the daily actions that will be required to achieve these goals, through constant mediation processes. You should ensure that the children are able to listen, participate, and are fully involved in the educational project that directly affects them through this process.

From Methodology to Operational Aspects of the IEP

A preliminary meeting with all relevant parties (social workers, courts, teachers, educators, parents, and, where possible, legal tutor representatives) is necessary before defining objectives that will be part of the educational project in order to ensure the objectives are aligned. Subsequently, these objectives are defined operationally by identifying both the children's and caregivers' actions (necessary to support a child in order to achieve their objectives).

Parallel meetings are held to take action from a child's and/or adolescent's perspective. During the experimental phase, an external contact will lead the meeting. Then, the team will reconvene to consider and include the suggestions made by the children or the adolescents. They will also write an educational project, balancing the children's and adolescents' preferred actions with actions initially proposed by adults only. To conclude, a meeting between the caregiver and the child is necessary to structure the educational program. Individual meetings and interviews are conducted in accordance with a decision-making model that is based on a democratic negotiation of the actions proposed by the caregiver and the child. The related actions will only be captured digitally at the end of this process in the form of software (which we intend to evolve into an application for mobile phones).

On the operational level, the IEP consists of three complementary and interdependent structural components:

  1. 1.

    Objectives (defined in advance and shared with the team) that can either be time-based or outcome-based. The former entails continuous monitoring over a certain, more or less lengthy period. Once achieved, the latter do not explicitly refer to monitoring the actions taken in pursuit of the goal (e.g., goal: "obtaining a driver's license").

  2. 2.

    Behaviors that a child, or adolescent, is expected to implement at the agreed time and manner. Therefore, the descriptors should be consistent with the assumptions/criteria of the goals so that they do not foreshadow themselves as failures. Moreover, as the goals are initially defined as abstract constructs, they must be operationalized, that is, they must be translated into practice by "descriptors" which are observable, tangible, quantifiable, visible, and therefore liable to monitoring (i.e.: if the objective is "obtaining a driver's license" a complementary descriptor is "I practice test quizzes twice a week for half an hour").

  3. 3.

    Acts of the caregiver: actions taken by educators in order to facilitate a behavior or descriptor. The educational acts entail relational intervention and a modulation of educational functions according to the objectives. Therefore, they can be actions taken in a supporting, scaffolding manner, as well as modeling functions, instrumental functions, or "memory" or play functions to increase well-being (e.g., "I'm looking forward to playing soccer."; an educational act that incorporates a memory function might be "I’ll remind you first" rather than "I'll check it out later"). Descriptors and educational acts will be outlined as indicators in the outline (i.e., each objective will have a title).

In order to use the individualized educational form, the team involved in the analysis must first define a set of objectives. Each objective is followed by a series of educational actions complementing the behavioral descriptors. Returning to Adolescent's example (see Box 1), we can hypothesize the structuring of the SEI from the goal: "stress regulation"(See Table 1).

Table 1 Goal, descriptors and educational acts
Full size table

Based on this example, it can be seen that the responsibility for achieving a goal is structurally shared; in order to anchor otherwise abstract constructs in tangible behavior, goals are always described as "positive". Every goal originally outlined in the overall plan that pertains to the person's areas of life (e.g., socialization, self-care, etc.), must be addressed. As a result, all of these objectives must be listed on the form in accordance with the step-by-step instructions. It is possible to fill out the form through a device (a computer or tablet) once a goal and related educational actions/descriptors have been defined, entering goals ("time-based" and "outcome-based"), facilitating actions and professional acts on the appropriate screen (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Taken from Bastianoni and Baiamonte (2014, pag.72). The clear definition of each goal allows for the sequential definition of the most appropriate actions to achieve it

New objective.

Full size image

Monitoring on a Weekly Basis Through Charts

After entering objectives and facilitating actions, the monitoring phase can begin on a weekly basis by choosing, from the list of objectives entered, the one to be monitored.Footnote 1 At any time, graphs can be displayed showing the results achieved for each goal, created on the basis of the monitoring stored up to that point in time. This possibility represents the core of this methodology, because it allows the person taken in charge (or the caregiver) to visualize, in a quick and simple way, the progress of the pathway considering the graphs by single objective (more detailed) or summarizing all the objectives (more synthetic).

Graphs of a Single Time Goal

Monitoring is represented by time trends (over the various weeks of observation) based on "Yes or No" for each facilitating action (left and middle part of the screen, line graphs). In addition, the overall positivity percentage (i.e., based on all weeks of observation) for each individual action is given (histogram graph, on the right-hand side of the screen, see Fig. 2). When the bar for a given action is red, it means that the overall result over the entire observation period is insufficient (positivity less than 60 percent), when it is green that it is sufficient (positivity equal to or greater than 60 percent).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Taken from Bastianoni and Baiamonte (2014, pag.81)

Time objective graphs.

Full size image

As can be seen from the related graph of the time goal "Fostering relationships with the family," the person concerned intuitively understands which actions (of both the boy and caregiver) are or are not sufficiently performed and in what observation period. From the bars and color of the histogram graph, for example, it is immediately apparent that the action "recognizes the parent's emotions" and the corresponding educational act "helps the boy understand the parent's emotions" are not yet sufficient. In operational practice, this result underscores the need to focus further on this action, which is evidently still not internalized as a goal as a necessity.Footnote 2 Looking at the graphs on the left, it is possible, on the other hand, to consider the time dimension and the trend of individual goals, considering the various weekly trends.

Graphs of a Single Outcome Goal

Goals for outcomes will be shown in a pie chart that shows how much has already been accomplished and how much remains to be accomplished. This provides a clear picture of how much is needed to reach the final outcome. A list of the actions already completed is displayed on the right, along with the week in which they were accomplished. On the left, however, are the actions that are still to be completed (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Taken from Bastianoni and Baiamonte (2014 pag.83)

Goal-to-outcome graphs.

Full size image

Graphs Summarizing All Objectives

For an overview of the situation, you can choose the objective summary graph to view, in less detail, the results of all objectives entered (both time-based and outcome-based). Time trends of overall positivity percentages, i.e., related to all actions, are displayed for time-based results. A green line centered around 60% represents "sufficiency." However, this type of graph does not provide information regarding individual actions, which must be consulted in the "Graph by Individual Goals." In the case of outcome goals, the pie chart is displayed without any indication of which actions were achieved or which were not (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Taken from Bastianoni and Baiamonte (2014, pag.84). Rapresentation of the percentages of positivity of facilitating actions in relation to time

Graphs summarizing goals.

Full size image

Perspectives for the Future: From PCs to Mobile Devices

The individualized educational plan is currently available in digital format and accessible via PC (Bastianoni & Baiamonte 2014). As a result, there are some logistical limitations associated with this setting (e.g., the absence of devices, or use constrained by the context in which the devices are available, etc.), which can be overcome by using an application (everyone has a cell phone, and applications can be used at the same time anywhere, anytime). Therefore, we intend to use the software from this program to develop an APP (application for mobile devices or tablets), with the aim of widely disseminating an educational design model with a strong participatory component. Specifically, our goal is to disseminate a simple and compact tool that facilitates constant assessment and joint monitoring between adult and child, co-constructing the individualized educational project. The APP, on the other hand, allows all figures/referents who are directly or indirectly involved in the implementation of child protection action to share specific information related to the child or adolescent in real time, based on an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992, 1993). We hope that this potential feature of APP will reduce psycho-evolutionary risk. From an ecological perspective, psycho-evolutionary risk is the result of inadequate interconnection among the various systems in which a child or adolescent is placed (schools, communities, after-school programs, social service courts, tribunals, families, etc.), and it is the result of the lack of a common model of psycho-evolutionary risk.We intend to propose a model shared among all actors in the protection system network, providing each with the ability to maintain a related page via an APP (into which notes from teachers, social services, etc. can be entered). As a result, the original model may undergo significant evolution. The purpose of the APP is to ensure the circularity of communication/information, while maintaining privacy when necessary, as well as constant monitoring by an adult (the APP is not accessible to children or adolescents, but can be viewed with an adult, e.g., the referring educator). In addition, we intend to differentiate the graphic components of the APP according to the age or background of the children. To ensure real engagement, even of the youngest, such as those in the preschool age group, we intend to supplement the app with illustrations, icons and emoticons that will replace (or supplement) sentences and words. Finally, we believe that this system will facilitate subsequent follow-up or longitudinal research by improving and streamlining the information and data collection and storage system. Of course, this program is not intended to replace all the existing devices (e.g., network meetings, group meetings, etc.), but it is intended to reinforce them. During the implementation of the APP in operational settings, as per the IEP model currently available in the software, we recommend initial training sessions for its use. These sessions will be accompanied by comprehensive guidance. We will gather evidence in an experimental phase (2 years) to confirm whether the dynamic and easy APP, rather than a software download for a PC, is indeed useful, as well as refining the critical parts found during this phase. We would like to conclude this brief description by emphasizing, as we have discussed several times, that each tool gains meaning only in the context of the intervention/relational approach matrix. For these tools to be effective, one must be genuinely interested in the people with whom one communicates and interacts. Without a real motivation to "be with" the other, every tool is reduced to a formal task.

The PEI From the Children's Point of View

In addition to observations collected in the field, there is currently no scientific research carried out in a comparative manner on the perception of children/adolescents relating to the traditional PEI and an PEI based on a relational model focused on listening to the minor and on the co-construction of the project itself. It could be hypothesized that this lack partly represents the result of an approach that still pays little attention to the voice of children and adolescents involved in the protection system, given the abundant literature that describes the developmental outcomes of children welcomed into care settings at residential and semi-residential character. Therefore, we hope and underline the need to carry out research focused on the "minority" voice of children and adolescents and to consider the related outcomes as an integral part of the verification of the model itself.