Educational systems worldwide are seeking ways to improve their schools by enhancing teaching practices and building capacity to boost student learning outcomes (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2015; Kyriakides et al., 2024). As a result, teachers are expected to engage in ongoing professional development and improve their competencies (Cain, 2015; Republic of Estonia, 2019; Verhoef et al., 2020). A key factor in school improvement is the establishment of organizational routines that structure activities that align with school goals and drive school improvement (Maag Merki et al., 2023). Yet, as previous studies indicate, the success of these routines often depends on effective collaboration between teachers, which can often remain a challenge without adequate support (Goodyear and Casey, 2013; Coburn et al., 2013; van Schaik et al., 2019). 

Increasingly, school improvement is linked to evidence-based practices which contribute to more effective instruction, enhanced student learning, and overall organizational improvement in schools (Vanlommel et al., 2017; Schildkamp 2019; Vanari et al., 2020). Data use plays a crucial role in this process, as it helps schools identify the areas that require improvement, determine potential interventions that could enhance the current situation, and evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions (Scott, 2013). Effective data use helps schools reach key goals, such as to enhance instruction, create strong learning communities and to potentially improve student outcomes (Levin, 2010). Despite its importance, research shows that teachers often lack the skills and knowledge about how to use data effectively for school improvement (Schildkamp and Kuiper, 2010; Carroll and Carroll, 2015; Mandinach and Gummer, 2016b; Rääk et al., 2021). Furthermore, data use in schools is frequently inconsistent or unsystematic (Vanlommel, 2018; Rääk et al., 2021; Siemann, 2021). Consequently, schools encounter difficulties in implementing and sustaining evidence-driven school improvement practices (OECD, 2020). 

Another challenge for schools in implementing sustainable evidence-driven school improvement practices is the fact that  the programs which are designed to support schools in their journey, last for a short period of time. This, in turn, might not be sufficient in helping schools reach set goals or support new initiatives in becoming routine actions within the organization(Conley and Enomoto, 2009).

Earlier research has emphasized four aspects that affect evidence-driven school improvement: data-related, team or user-related, organizational and context-related factors (Schildkamp and Poortman, 2015; Schildkamp et al., 2017). Collaboration was  highlighted as a central element for successful data use in a study among Estonian teachers on their data use and how meaningful it is in terms of its possible impact on instruction  (Rääk et al., 2021).  Therefore, drawing from the identified gaps, this study builds on the previous contextual framework by incorporating additional data-related and external factors that may influence data-use practices. 

Overall, this study examines how five Estonian schools perceive evidence-driven school improvement in a 3-year school-university partnership program. In each school, the principal and teachers collaborated with an external mentor. Supported by university experts, the school improvement teams worked on projects aimed at enhancing student learning in their schools and fostering a collaborative, evidence-driven school culture. 

The study is framed by three research questions:

1. How do schools understand evidence-driven school improvement?

2. What are the enabling and hindering factors of data use that schools face in improvement?

3. How do school improvement teams perceive the sustainability of evidence-driven school improvement routines?

The broader impact of this study lies in its contribution to the further development of similar programs for schools to ensure sustainability of evidence-driven school improvement processes.

Data was gathered with focus group interviews (Bryman, 2016). For the sake of this study, it was important to collect data pertaining to a collective view on the topic rather than the individual as the highly concentrated nature of focus groups interviews on studying specific issues might provide insights to the collective view that may not emerge from direct interviews (Cohen et al., 2018). The collective view also allows us to study the impact of evidence-driven practices on teachers’ interaction patterns which influence the beliefs about data use on a staff level (Coburn and Turner (2011). These focus group interviews drew from the concepts of the theoretical framework on how school teams perceive evidence-driven practices for school improvement purposes and which factors might impact their performance in doing so sustainably. The interviews that lasted from 23 - 45 minutes were conducted via Zoom in June 2024, and were transcribed verbatim with the use of a transcription system for Estonian speech (Alumäe et al., 2018). For the purposes of this study, the quotes from the interviews were translated into English. Altogether, 24 members from five different schools that participated in the School Improvement Program (2021-2024) were interviewed. Each school team comprised four to six participants, including the principal and teachers actively involved in the improvement process. The aforementioned schools were selected for their relative similarities which enabled the inclusion of topics in monthly seminars that would resonate with all school teams. Also, sharing experiences on participating in the program became more valuable and meaningful for schools that were somewhat more homogeneous as opposed to schools with diverse backgrounds and characteristics. A thematic content analysis was applied to examine the findings based on the theoretical framework (Schreier, 2012). Cross-verification was employed where two researchers analyzed the data independently and then compared their interpretations to ensure consistency and improve the reliability and transparency of data analysis (Cohen et al., 2018). Next, peer debriefing sessions were conducted with a colleague with expertise in qualitative research and who was not involved in this study. Finally, the main themes and sub-themes were finalized and aligned with the research questions through a consensus process.

On the question of how teachers understand evidence-driven school improvement, this study found that all schools had started to view data as relevant through the School Improvement Program. While data use was initially identified as the weakest aspect, it therefore experienced the most significant changes. The five participating schools primarily utilized data from national databases for mapping purposes, enabling effective comparisons with other institutions. Throughout the program, all schools began practicing the use of new data sources. Observing the practices of other schools during visits had a positive impact on teachers’ attitudes toward data use, particularly in regarding benchmarking. In this study, the use of evidence for instructional improvement was found to be underutilized. On the question of which could be the enabling and hindering factors in using evidence-driven school improvement practices, a significant finding revealed that all schools struggled with school-organizational and teacher-related factors in establishing data-use processes. Challenges such as staff retention, job position changes and resistance hindered collaboration both within and beyond the improvement teams. The external factors, such as mentors’ support and the involvement of local municipalities were mostly seen as supportive. Pertaining to the third research question about how school teams perceive the sustainability of evidence-driven school improvement routines, it was found that scaling-up of the initiatives posed significant challenges, particularly for larger schools, which struggled to engage other staff members meaningfully. Also, after three years of support from various stakeholders, some teachers expressed hesitance about the continuity of the initiative that was introduced. Another important aspect that emerged is that the schools and improvement team leaders started to take ownership of their crucial role in carrying out school improvement activities.

Goodyear, V. A., and Casey, A. (2013). Innovation with change: developing a community of practice to help teachers move beyond the ‘honeymoon' of pedagogical renovation. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 20, 186–203. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2013.817012 Kyriakides, L., Ioannou, I., Charalambous, E., and Michaelidou, V. (2024). The dynamic approach to school improvement: investigating duration and sustainability effects on student achievement in mathematics. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 35, 1–23. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2024.2385921 Levin, B. (2010). Leadership for evidence-informed education. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 30, 303–315. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2010.497483 Maag Merki, K., Wullschleger, A., and Rechsteiner, B. (2023). Adapting routines in schools when facing challenging situations: extending previous theories on routines by considering theories on self-regulated and collectively regulated learning. J. Educ. Change 24, 583–604. doi: 10.1007/s10833-022-09459-1 Schildkamp, K. (2019). Data-based decision-making for school improvement: research insights and gaps. Educ. Res. 61, 257–273. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2019.1625716 Sherer, J. Z., and Spillane, J. P. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: the role of organizational routines. Teach. Coll. Rec. 113, 611–657. doi: 10.1177/016146811111300302 Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., and Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: a systematic review. Educ. Res. Rev. 15, 17–40. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002 Vanlommel, K., Van Gasse, R., Vanhoof, J., and Van Petegem, P. (2017). Teachers' decision-making: data based or intuition driven? Int. J. Educ. Res. 83, 75–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.013 Verhoef, L., Volman, M., and Gaikhorst, L. (2020). The contribution of teachers of research-intensive teacher education programmes to a culture of inquiry in primary schools. Prof. Dev. Educ. 48, 1−17. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1747104