Conference Program

Priority question of the survey still in progress: between high schools, technical institutes and vocational institutes in the Liguria region are there substantial differences in the evaluation of area 2.5 of the Self-Assessment Report (RAV) with regard to the dimension "Outcomes in terms of well-being at school"?

Strategies currently adopted: comparative analysis of the RAV of Technical and Professional Institutes and High Schools with regard to strengths and weaknesses in relation to the "Student Well-being" dimension.

Lines of action envisaged: focus groups with a significant number of members of the schools' internal evaluation units; focus groups with groups of students in the three-year period of secondary schools; interviews with parents elected to collegiate bodies; interviews with territorial partners of the various institutes.

From an initial analysis of the schools' strategic documents, conducted on the UNICA platform (Ministry of Education and Merit), the following scenario emerges:

- Most schools in the evaluation of the "Student Well-being" dimension assign themselves a score of 5, without however disclosing the motivation for the chosen level.

- Few upper secondary education institutions (with a prevalence of the professional address) are evaluated with level 3, reporting the presence of conflicts between students, lack of internalization of social interaction guidelines, difficulty in generating concrete inclusion processes. Paradoxically, however, these institutes do not develop priorities and goals with reference to the critical framework described and, consequently, do not indicate any strategy for possible improvement.

- Among the various fields of study, particularly in the area of Genoa, the institutes that have adopted the recent technological-professional chain (4+2) are the schools that interpret the data (deriving from the teachers' questionnaire and school questionnaire) with greater accuracy, completeness and consistency and present, more frequently than high schools, the definition of priorities and goals on the "student well-being" dimension.

- In particular, it is noted that these institutions, being part of a significant perspective of complexity, intervene on four paths, closely connected and related to "feeling good at school" by students:

1. Modes of production of the psychophysical and social well-being of each student within the class and in the peer group of the whole institution (first-level well-being or well-being as a result).
2. Preparation of formal situations and enhancement of informal experiences (surveyed by students in the Digital Portfolio on the UNICA ministerial platform) that allow the integrated acquisition of social-emotional and cognitive skills (Law 22/2025) and the experimentation of second-level well-being (well-being as an enabling factor of other dimensions of the subject: self-esteem and self-determination, motivation, resilience, self-efficacy, imagination of the future, reduction of states of anxiety and stress).
3. Implementation of forms of distributed leadership and hybrid governance (by school-business-territory networks) of school-work training of students (third-level or system well-being, characterized by the co-presence of the following elements: open-mindedness, performativity, relationship with others, collaboration, emotional regulation).
4. Generation and supervision of training effectiveness (authentic co-learning, personalization, direction of widespread reflexivity and proactive orientation).