Since the turn of the century, data on student learning has played an increasingly prominent role in global education governance. With the proliferation of global indicators and international comparisons, the measurement agenda and data production demands have grown and spread widely in national education systems worldwide. Despite the global adoption of large-scale learning assessments (LSAs) and the growing influence of evidence-based policymaking discourses, the uses that governments make of LSAs data vary widely, being context-sensitive and contingent on political and institutional settings (Verger et al., 2019). In low-stakes accountability contexts such uses have been less explored. While the literature suggests that LSAs data is influential for agenda setting, and policy monitoring and evaluation, it is less clear the extent to which it is used by governments to inform policy formulation processes (Tobin et al., 2016). Thus, this paper explores whether and how data from LSAs is used by the national government in Argentina and the subnational government in the city of Buenos Aires to inform policy design. The Argentinean case presents a complex political scenario in which the adoption, calibration and retention of learning assessment instruments has been amid federal political interaction (Rodríguez et al., 2018). Through a qualitative vertical case study, the paper explores to what extent, how and why governments at the national and subnational levels use LSAs data to inform policy formulation (2015-2019) (Barlett & Vavrus, 2014). The empirical strategy relies on document analysis (n=55) and in-depth semi-structured interviews with policymakers (n=20). Results show that data from national large-scale assessments (NLSAs) was privileged at the national level, and from local large-scale assessments (LLSAs) at the subnational level. Data from cross-national assessments (ILSAs) was used to a lesser extent during policy formulation. Data use encompassed both instrumental and symbolic purposes, while conceptual use was less prominent and linked to other forms of educational evidence, such as qualitative studies (Coburn et al., 2009). The paper provides theoretical insights into the close relationship between the political rationales for legitimating the NLSA and the logic offered for using (or not) its data in policymaking (Addey & Sellar, 2018).

Addey, C., & Sellar, S. (2019). Rationales for (non) participation in international large-scale learning assessments. Education Research and Foresight: UNESCO Working paper. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2014). Transversing the Vertical Case Study: A Methodological Approach to Studies of Educational Policy as Practice: Transversing the Vertical Case Study. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 45(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12055. Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds.), The Role of Research in Educational Improvement (pp. 67-86). Harvard Education Press. Rodríguez, L. R., Vior, S. E., & Más Rocha, S. M. (2018). Las Políticas de Evaluación de la Calidad Educativa en Argentina (2016-2018). Educação & Realidade, 43(4), 1405–1428. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623684907. Tobin, M., Nugroho, D., & Lietz, P. (2016). Large-scale assessments of students’ learning and education policy: Synthesising evidence across world regions. Research Papers in Education, 31(5), 578–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1225353. Verger, A., Parcerisa, L., & Fontdevila, C. (2019). The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: A political sociology of global education reforms education reforms. Educational Review, 00(00), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1522045