In recent years, governing regimes in education that emphasize performance management and accountability have been introduced in several countries (Ozga et al. 2011, Altrichter & Merki, 2010). Various types of assessment tools which produce ‘data’ on student performance provide a basis for generating information to be used for policy making and to motivate change in education (Datnow 2011, Fuller 2008). Data use is here defined as what takes place when individuals interact by using test scores, grades, and other forms of assessment tools in their work (Coburn & Turner, 2011, Spillane, 2012). Knowledge about the various ways in which data are produced and used (or not used) by authorities, school leaders, and teachers is therefore crucial to evaluating possible developments in terms of governing education, yet has to a limited extent been researched within the European context.

A well-known characteristic of policy induced data use in education is the the double functioning of data: as a tool for governing of education and as a tool for development and improvement of education (Skedsmo, 2011). However, in spite of this double function, what are mostly being emphasized in education debate and reform is data use for the purpose of education development and improvement. Data use as a tool for governing, control and accountability on the other hand, seems to be understudied in research and less communicated in policy (Mausethagen et al. 2016). Tensions and what is often characterized as a contradictory relationship between the different functions of data use suggested by research illustrates how expectations around data use challenge school leaders and teachers in their daily work. For example, there is a dilemma concerning how data can illuminate important problems in education and lead to productive development processes and resource allocations at various authority levels on the one side, but also how data may produce a limited view on problems to solve by the local actors resulting in a restricted view on what processes to engage in and the type of measures to initiate.

In this symposium, aspects related to tensions between policy initiatives and policy requirements on the one side, and the educational practices on the other, are explored and discussed from different viewpoints. How the double function plays out between various actors within education and between levels of educational systems in different national and international contexts, is the focal point of this symposium.

Altrichter, H. & Maag-Merki, K. (Eds.) (2010). Handbuch neue Steuerung im Schulsystem. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Coburn, C. & Turner, E.O. (2011). Research on data use: Aframework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Practice, 9(4), 173-206. Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 147-158. Fuller, B. (2008). Liberal learning in centralising states. Fuller, B., Henne, M. K. & Hannum, E. (Eds.) Strong States, Weak Schools: The Benefits and Dilemmas of Centralised Accountability, Vol. 16. Bingley: Emerald Group. Mausethagen, S. Skedsmo, G. & Prøitz, T. S. (2015) Nye ansvarliggjøringsprosesser og organisasjonsrutiner i skolen – rom for utvikling? Paper submitted to Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2011). Fabricating quality in education: Data and governance in Europe. New York, NY: Routledge. Skedsmo, G. (2011). Formulation and realisation of evaluation policy: Inconsistencies and problematic issues. Journal of Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,23(1), 5-20. Spillane, J.P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2),113-141