The discourses on digital transition discourses have a prominent position in the political agendas of both transnational and national governance institutions. For instance, the European Commission and the European Council, emphasise the role of digital transition as a key driver of Europe's social and economic development and essential to ensuring better jobs (European Commission, 2018, 2020; European Council, 2019).

The importance, intensity and reach of the digital transition into all sectors of society has led to it being called the fourth Industrial Revolution (Lima, 2021) or technological revolution. According to António Magalhães (2021), education has been incorporating digitalisation into teaching and learning processes and the CoViD-19 pandemic has accentuated the discourse on the need of this, making it urgent. The pandemic has thus served as a catalyst for a political agenda that was already underway, "placing the digitalisation of education and the development of digital skills at the heart of the education policy agenda" (Magalhães, 2021). By digitalisation of education, we mean the "configuration of teaching and learning, their materials and their methods and techniques in digital language" (Magalhães, 2021, p. 6). This configuration has led to changes in education, educational relations and forms of governance of education which, according to Ben Williamson (2016), should currently be understood as the digital governance of education. This is precisely the subject of our work.

The purpose of this paper is to present a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on the digital governance of education, developed as part of an ongoing doctoral project entitled "public education policies in a context of digital transition", which aims to study the mandates addressed to the Portuguese education system, specifically compulsory education, by the digital transition discourses delivered by transnational and national institutions. We identified educational governance as one of the dimensions to be studied when analysing these mandates.

The digitalisation of education governance processes accentuates a political grammar of public administration - New Public Management - characterised by the adoption of performance measurement strategies and the promotion of markets to take over the provision of public services. It is an approach to the governance of public services that, , according to Radhika Gorur (2020) or Jenny Ozga (2016),is dominated by the emphasis on numbers.. This perspective of governance, combined with the efficiency and precision of digitalisation, enables the collection and provision of information in the form of data, thereby informing the governance decisions of the state., constituting what Foucault (1991) calls "governmentality".

The advance of the digital in the governance of educational systems favours the emergence of a new technological industry that is leading the most significant changes in educational policies and, consequently, in the ways of learning and teaching in the classroom. Geo Saura (2021) argues that, in the continuity of forms of governance marked by the growing influence of transnational actors and the opening up of the state to service providers and the private sector, governance is carried out through political networks of digital governance. These networks are made up of political actors, software, digital technologies and large technology companies, which play an important role in shaping and developing education policies.

Despite its increasing prominence, the digital governance of education has been little studied (Williamson, 2016). This SLR aims to report on the scientific literature produced in this field, seeking to systematise knowledge and open up possibilities for discussion in the less studied dimensions.

In this section, we briefly present how we carried out the Systematic Literature Review (SLR). This is the initial stage of the doctoral project and aims to gather existing knowledge on what has been called digital governance of education in the scientific literature. The first step of the SLR was to formulate a question or guiding theme for the review (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Xiao and Watson, 2019). Our question was: what knowledge exists about the influence of digitalisation on educational governance? We then searched, using the Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), for the combination of keywords "Digital Governance of Education NOT Higher Education" in four databases: EBSCO, B-on, Web of Science and Scopus. We considered scientific articles, books and book chapters, in Portuguese, English and Spanish, between 2000 and April 2023, when the review began. This first search yielded a total of 257 texts. The next step of the SLR was to analyse these texts by title and abstract, leaving 120. Finally, these 120 texts were fully read and 69 were considered for the SLR.

We now present some of SLR's conclusions, as well as further research suggestions. The first conclusion relates to the importance of different educational contexts, which digital governance of education, according to the studies presented, seems to ignore. Political governance networks operate at a global level, influencing the education agenda that is implemented in schools in different countries. However, this implementation does not take into account the tensions that may exist in different countries and education systems, demonstrating that there is no linearity or universality in the implementation of this agenda (Takayama & Lingard, 2018; Maguire, 2019). The second conclusion concerns the relationship between the digital governance of education and digital capitalism, as well as the emergence of new actors in the field of education. In the most recent forms of public administration, the State has been removed from its central role in the governance of education, opening it up to the influence of transnational actors and the private sector. More recently, technology companies have gained prominence because of the possibility they offer of collecting digital data, which is the product of their business. It follows that these companies are profiting from the education of children and young people at a global level, since they are part of the aforementioned transnational governance networks. It is essential to emphasise this relationship between the various educational actors and their interests in defining educational agendas, to confront the idea that we are talking about an inevitable and neutral path. Finally, the scientific literature on the topic has mostly focused on digital platforms, companies and schools, but less on the discourses of political institutions, which put digitalisation on the agenda for education as a political instrument of governance legitimising it as a project for society.

European Commission (2018). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Digital Education Action Plan. Brussels. European Comission (2020). Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. Luxembourg. European Council (2019). A New Strategic Agenda 2019-2024. Brussels. Denyer, David & Tranfield, David (2009). Producing a systematic review. In: David Buchanan & Alan Bryman (Ed.) The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671-689). SAGE. Foucault, Michel (1991). Governmentality. In Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (orgs.), The Foucault effect, studies in governmentality (pp. 87-104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gorur, Radhika (2020). Afterword: embracing numbers? International Studies in Sociology of Education, 29 (1-2), 187-197. DOI: 10.1080/09620214.2020.1720518 Lima, Licínio (2021). Máquinas de administrar a educação: Dominação digital e burocracia aumentada. Educação e Sociedade, 42, 1-16. Magalhães, António M. (2021). Caminhos e Dilemas da Educação Superior na Era Digital. Educação e Sociedade 42, 1-16. Maguire, Laura Høvsgaard (2019). Adapting to the test: performing algorithmic adaptivity in Danish schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40 (1), 78-92. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2018.1549705 Ozga, Jenny (2016). Trust in numbers? Digital Education Governance and the inspection process. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 69–81. Saura, Geo (2021). Redes políticas y redes de datos de gubernamentalidad neoliberal en educación. Foro de Educación, 19 (1), 1-10. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14516/fde.924 Takayama, Keita & Lingard, Bob (2018). Datafication of schooling in Japan: an epistemic critique through the ‘problem of Japanese education’. Journal of Education Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1518542 Williamson, Ben (2016). Digital education governance: An introduction. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 3–13. Xiao, Yu & Watson, Maria (2019). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39, 93–112.