Schools in socioeconomic disadvantaged areas have to face challenging circumstances caused by external conditions (Reynolds et al., 2001). But schools’ underperformance can also be considered as results of insufficient process quality at school and classroom level (Holtappels, 2008). In general, school improvement approaches demand a high capacity for organizational learning in schools. However schools in challenging circumstances on average show low capacity for change and self-renewal, because struggling with external difficulties and suffering from internal problems often impede appropriate strategies (Muijs et al., 2004; Holtappels et al., 2017).

With regard to effective schools in challenging circumstances, previous studies reveal conducive conditions for school turn-around: effective leadership practices, professional learning communities, readiness for innovation, commitment towards school development and use of data (Muijs et al., 2004). Therefore, strategies for improvement have to focus mainly on enhancing the educational quality on class and school level by using external support and school-to-school networks (Chapman, 2008). Professional learning by using data seems to be very important.

This paper is focusing on data-driven school development, especially on predictors and effects of use of data and dealing with data-feedback within schools. Considering the knowledge base about data-driven school development in schools findings of several studies are relevant:

• Empirical data concerning process quality from external evaluation are the base for accountability and internal understanding and decision making within schools with regard to state of quality and development needs and can stimulate school improvement (Ehren & Visscher, 2006).
• Data about process and output quality of schools are getting relevance for evidence-based activities for improvement mostly through internal evaluations (Chapman & Sammons 2013), particularly in systematic school development processes (Schildkamp, Lai & Earl 2012; Holtappels & Brücher, 2021).
• Designs of data-feedback to schools, aims and characteristics of feedback systems do affect the use of data; beyond this influence of school features and the process of implementation are to consider (Visscher & Coe 2002).
• Theoretical approaches and studies (Visscher & Coe 2002; Schildkamp, Lai & Earl 2012; Bonsen & Peek 2006) emphasise adaptive forms of data-feedback, weighting and competencies of involved staff and intensity of dealing with data feedback for school improvement.

An evidence-based strategy for improvement of schools facing challenging circumstances should be aware that conducive conditions und accompanied processes foster the acceptance and intensive use of data about process quality of the school. Beyond this, data-driven development procedures need an alignment concerning change agents and an infrastructure for school development inside school (Holtappels & Brücher, 2021), especially professional learning and collaboration of teachers and their commitment to changes, promoted by practices of leadership for learning (MacBeath et al., 2018), steering groups and opportunities for learning in school-to-school networks. This insights meets European perspectives and research on teacher learning by data use in many countries.  

The analyses follow three research questions:

1)      How far have teachers in schools with challenging circumstances experiences concerning data use from internal and external evaluation?

2)      Which successful key factors for data use are to identify by considering variables of the organizational culture and the school development process?

3)      Could the evidence-based strategy with data-feedback contribute to impacts on school improvement activities and the establishing of school development capacity?

We assumed that especially principal leadership, professional teacher collaboration and active involvement of teachers in school development processes could be intervening variables for data use, but empirical evidence about these relationships was rare before (Holtappels et al., 2021). Beyond this, we suppose that professional teacher collaboration and teacher commitment to school improvement can enhance the intensity of school development activities and the establishing of school development capacity.

The research was embedded in a design-based school development program with external support and school-to-school networks over four years in the Ruhr-District of Western Germany for schools in challenging circumstances (Holtappels et al., 2021). 35 secondary schools were accompanied from 2014 thru 2018 by comprising suitable support and interventions in schools through a combination of four program components: • evidence-based analysis about process quality and development and data-feedback to schools concerning process variables, • collaborative learning of schools` stakeholders (two key persons of every school) in school-to-school networks, • suitable support by knowledge-transfer and further trainings for principals and steering groups as change agents and for the whole staff, • counseling and advice for school development processes by accompanying advisors inside schools per guidance within school development processes. Our process monitoring showed a high acceptance and use of data from feedback within the project about process quality and development needs. The longitudinal research with two measuring points (baseline and second survey at the end) captured data about context and process variables as school quality indicators based on standardized questionnaires. The presented issues contain mean comparison tests and regression analyses, based on data of the principals and teachers (n=980), who delivered longitudinal data about the organizational culture and the school development. Furthermore, with questionnaires for students (n=2.524) and their parents (n=1.576) we collected data about teaching and learning in classrooms and socio-economic background. Approved and new created standardized instruments could provide reliable Likert-scales for all considered variables.

Examined schools in challenging circumstances show broad scope of experiences and prior participation of teachers concerning data use from internal and external evaluations. During the project period teachers` participation remains on high level and the extent of data use is low on average but show an increase over time. Central findings: - Teachers` weighting of usefulness of data-feedback within the project score on middle level but teachers with active involvement in school development efforts estimate the usefulness for school development higher. - Professional teacher collaboration and teacher commitment to project-based school development are strong predictors for use of data feedback. - Predictors for the intensity of school development activities seem to be leadership for learning, active teacher involvement to the project and broad prior experiences with data use from internal evaluations. Data-feedback within the project show no influence. - The estimated usefulness of data-feedback within the project show an impact on establishing school development capacity. Beyond this teacher commitment to project-based school development and active teacher involvement in school development process contribute as other predictors. Under the four supporting elements of our school development program the usefulness of data-feedback estimated by teachers play an important role for establishing school development capacity. Based on our findings an essential conclusion is that evidence-based and data-driven school development support for schools contribute to the development of schools facing challenging circumstances. However, the findings lead to the recommendation that data-driven school development work should be embedded in a design-based school development program (Mintrop, 2016; Bryk et al., 2015) because teachers would like to expect real support in a guided process by networking and counseling (Holtappels et al., 2021). We can find brief confirmations in several studies about school development programs in Europe, especially in United Kingdom, Netherlands and Germany.

Bryk, A., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A. & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve. How America's schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge/MA: Harvard Education Press. Chapman, C. (2008). Towards a framework for school-to-school networking in challenging circumstances. Educational Research, 50(4), 403–420. Chapman, C. & Sammons, P. (2013). School Self-evaluation for School Improvement: What works and why? Project Report. CfBT Education Trust, Reading. Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2006). Towards a theory on the impact of school inspections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 51–72. Holtappels, H. G. (2008). Failing Schools – Systematisierung von Schultypologien und empirischer Forschungsstand Qualität von Schule. Journal für Schulentwicklung, 12 (1), 10–19. Holtappels, H. G., Ackeren, I. van, Kamarianakis, E., Kamski, I., Bremm, N. & Webs T. (2021). Das Schulentwicklungsdesign des Projekts „Potenziale entwickeln – Schulen stärken“ In: I. van Ackeren, H. G. Holtappels, N. Bremm & A. Hillebrand-Petri (Hrsg.), Schulen in herausfordernden Lagen – Forschungsbefunde und Schulentwicklung in der Region Ruhr. Das Projekt „Potenziale entwickeln – Schulen stärken“. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Juventa, S. 38-71. Holtappels, H. G. & Brücher, L. (2021). Entwicklungen in den Projektschulen: Qualitätsverbesserungen und Aufbau von Schulentwicklungskapazität. In: I. Van Ackeren, H. G. Holtappels, N. Bremm & A. Hillebrand-Petri (Hrsg.), Schulen in herausfordernden Lagen – Forschungsbefunde und Schulentwicklung in der Region Ruhr. Das Projekt „Potenziale entwickeln – Schulen stärken“. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Juventa, S. 128-166. Holtappels, H. G., Webs, T., Kamarianakis, E. & Ackeren, I. van (2017). Schulen in herausfordernden Problemlagen – Typologien, Forschungsstand und Schulentwicklungsstrategien. In: V. Manitius & P. Dobbelstein (Hrsg.), Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Problemlagen. Münster, New York: Waxmann, S. 17-35. Mintrop, R. (2016). Design-Based School Improvement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press. MacBeath, J., Dempster, N., Frost, D., Johnson, G. & Swaffield, S. (2018). Strengthening the Connections between Leadership and Learning. Challenges to Policy, School and Classroom Practice. New York: Routledge. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L. & Russ, J. (2004). Improving Schools in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas – A Review of Research Evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15 (2), 149–175. Reynolds, D., Hopkins, D., Potter, D. & Chapman, C. (2001). School Improvement for Schools Facing Challenging Circumstances: A Review of Research and Practice. London: Department for Education and Skills. Schildkamp, K., Lai, M. K. & Earl, L. (2012). Data-Based Decision Making in Education. Challenges and Opportunities. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York. Visscher, A. J. & Coe, R. (2002). School Improvement Through Performance Feedback. London: Routledge.