Data is a fundamental part of schools, whether for grading and performance evaluation or school administration and improvement (Selwyn, 2020). The growing datafication, which can be understood as the process of generating, collecting, processing, and utilizing digital data, as well as the accompanying availability of data, related algorithms, and emerging (action) opportunities (Jarke & Breiter, 2019), are leading to changes in data-driven practices within schools: The growing relevance of digital data is attributed not only to the ease with which it can be generated, processed, merged and used, but also to the ability to investigate school-related areas and phenomena through data analysis. It is striking that with (new) options that become visible and possible through the generation and use of data, expectations and demands are also placed on schools and the actors involved in them. This usually takes place under the topoi of optimization, individualization, economization and increased efficiency. Against the background of these expectations, school leaders are also increasingly coming into focus, as they play a key role in the coordination and use of data (in) schools (Schildkamp et al., 2019). International studies already highlight the pivotal role of school leaders in the context of evidence-based school improvement (e.g. Levin & Datnow, 2012). Furthermore, the data practices of teachers are also significantly influenced by school leaders and their (data) practices (e.g. Schildkamp et al., 2019). Although there is already extensive international research on the use of data in the school context (see, for example, for data-based decision making: Jimerson, 2014; Spillane, 2012), there is a limited understanding of how individuals manage datafication processes in their daily routines and how data is actually used within educational institutions (Sefton-Green & Pangrazio, 2021). This is especially relevant when considering the data practices of school leaders as an integral aspect of their leadership practices (Demski & Racherbäumer, 2015). Despite their key role and the assumption that they use data in everyday work, academic studies usually only address school leaders as those responsible for and experts in their individual school, while their own actions are rarely focused on. The question remains, then, how school leaders engage with and use digital data in their everyday work and, as a result, fulfil the frequently discussed expectations placed upon them. This applies in particular to Germany, where data-based action in schools has been demanded by education policy since the early 2000s but has so far (apparently) only taken place to a limited extent in school practice. To counteract this desideratum, it is highly relevant to know how data practices are (not) carried out in schools. Although an ethnographic study using shadowing has provided initial insights into the data use of school leaders (Krein, 2024), research on how school leaders in Germany engage with (digital) data remains fragmented and has yet to be systematically compiled. This contribution addresses this gap by focusing on the following research question: How do school leaders in Germany engage with und use digital data in their day-to-day professional work (actually)?

Following on from perspectives of Critical Data Studies (Macgilchrist, Hartong & Jornitz, 2022), data are understood as dynamic, distributed and constantly transforming entities that actively shape their environment, at the same time being shaped by it and thus being in an inevitable reciprocal relationship with it (Krein & Schiefner-Rohs, 2021). Following this relational understanding, the focus of this contribution is on the ontological implications of (digital) data and its transformative influence on schools, and particularly the actions of school leaders.

To address this question a systematic review according to Newman & Gough (2020) was conducted. The methodological approach was also based on the standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) according to Moher et al. (2015). Between May and October 2024, the databases FIS Bildung, which also includes ERIC and BASE, Google Scholar, ProQuest and Web of Science were used to search for scientific publications on the actions of school leaders with (digital) data. The searches were based on German and English predefined terms, organized into the two main categories 'data' and 'school leadership'. These categories included commonly used terms as well as synonyms from the relevant discourse. It was possible to achieve a total of 1,927 hits across all databases. These hits were exported as a first step and existing duplicates were removed. The remaining hits (N = 1,853) were then individually subjected to an initial content check based on their titles, keywords and abstracts. This was followed by a full-text review. Twelve publications were identified as relevant and included in the literature review (a discussion of the methodological approach, in particular the high number of excluded hits, is part of the presentation). The data corpus was analyzed following a two-step, iterative coding process using a narrative approach (Snilstveit et al., 2012). For each publication, the focus was first on coding all descriptive information before coding information on the data practices of school leaders. This involved coding the focus of the individual contributions, their research questions and target groups, the (theoretical) perspectives on data and school leaders presented, the research methods selected, and the results reported. Finally, the coding units were checked for recurring aspects, similarities and differences, before the findings were synthesized.

Initial results indicate that school leaders' data practices are multifaceted and can be categorized according to underlying intentions: School leaders use data for (1) administrative, (2) symbolic, (3) development-oriented and (4) self-referential purposes. In addition, different ways of using individual types of data were identified: It is pointed out that school leaders increasingly use data collected within the school that focuses on the respective, specific school context, while externally collected data, such as scientific studies or comparative tests, are used less frequently. The received papers also clearly showed that the data practices of school leaders are significantly influenced by the school context, the existing organizational culture, the individual attitudes of school leaders towards the generation and use of data and their leadership styles. However, the research papers analyzed mostly show undifferentiated understandings of data, which is also reflected in the results reported. A differentiated presentation of the individual data practices of school leaders and the discussion of these results will be given at ECER 2025. As the results obtained are also highly relevant for other countries, numerous implications for education policy, future research and the professionalization of school leaders are discussed in conclusion.

Demski, D. & Racherbäumer, K. (2015). Principals’ evidence-based practice – findings from German schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(6), 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2014-0086 Jarke, J. & Breiter, A. (2019). Editorial: the datafication of education. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1573833 Jimerson, J. B. (2014). Thinking about data: Exploring the development of mental models for “data use” among teachers and school leaders. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 5–14. Krein, U. (2024). Schulleitung und Digitalisierung. Bedingungen und Herausforderungen für das Handeln von Schulleitenden. transcript. Krein, U. & Schiefner-Rohs, M. (2021). Data in Schools: (Changing) Practices and Blind Spots at a Glance. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.672666 Levin J. A. & Datnow, A. (2012). The principal role in data driven decision making: Using case study data to develop multi-mediator models of educational reform. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 179–201. Macgilchrist, F., Hartong, S., & Jornitz, S. (2022). Algorithmische Datafizierung und Schule: kritische Ansätze in einem wachsenden Forschungsfeld. In K. Scheiter & I. Gogolin (Hrsg.), Bildung für eine digitale Zukunft (317–338). Springer VS. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Review, 4(1),1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046- 4053-4-1 Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, and K. Buntins (Hrsg.), Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application (3–22). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1 Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., Ebbeler, J., & Pieters, J. M. (2019). How School Leaders Can Build Effective Data Teams: Five Building Blocks for a New Wave of Data-Informed Decision Making. Journal of Educational Change, 20, 283–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09345-3 Sefton-Green, J. & Pangrazio, L. (2021). The death of the educative subject? The limits of criticality under datafication. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1978072 Selwyn, N. (2020). ‘Just playing around with Excel and pivot tables’ - the realities of data-driven schooling. Research Papers in Education, 37(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1812107 Snilstveit, B., Oliver, S., & Vojtkova, M. (2012). Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.710641 Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in Practice: Conceptualizing the Data-Based Decision-Making Phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 113–141.