In Europe, as in other parts of the world, data use is key to informing decision-making for school improvement initiatives (Lasater et al, 2019; Meyers et al, 2022). Schildkamp, Karbautzki, and Vanhoof (2014) conducted a comparative study to examine the purposes for which data are used in five European countries (Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom). Concerning the use of data for school and instructional improvement, respondents in all countries reported using data for policy development, school improvement planning, teacher development, and instructional improvement. However, in all countries except the United Kingdom, data use appeared to remain at a very superficial level, not moving beyond the monitoring phase (Schildkamp, Karbautzki, & Vanhoof, 2014, p. 22). Against this backdrop, it is relevant to provide evidence on the purposes for which school leaders in Chilean high schools use data. Chile is widely known for an education system characterized by strong accountability mechanisms and extensive use of standardized testing (SIMCE), which influences the purposes of data use (Falabella, 2020; Silva et al., 2022). 

According to Schildkamp and Kuiper (2010), data use is the process of systematically analyzing the information sources available within schools and applying the results of this analysis to innovate in teaching, curriculum management, and  evaluation of these innovations. Through the effective use of diverse data, school leadership teams and teachers can generate knowledge and organizational learning (Lasater et al 2019). School leaders and teachers can use data for different purposes, including school development, instruction, and accountability (Schildkamp, Lai, and Earl, 2013). School leaders play a central role in shaping teachers’ data-use culture and purposes, as well as in establishing a shared vision, norms, and goals for data use in schools. Examining how they understand the purpose of data provides insights into how school practitioners enact assessment policies and how data is used for students learning opportunities Prior studies have shown that school leaders put these purposes into practice by (1) monitoring progress and identifying areas of need, (2) developing and planning policy, (3) evaluating teachers’ performance and supporting teacher collaboration, (4) public relations, and (5) meeting accountability demands (Shildkamp & Kuiper, 2010). 

The accountability purpose is highly consequential in Chile because the state can close schools if they remain in the Insufficient category for four consecutive years. In Chile’s quasi-market model, standardized test scores (SIMCE) are used by schools to compete for parents' school choice. A voucher system based on enrollment and daily attendance serves as an incentive to use SIMCE results as a marketing tool.

The current study was guided by the following research question: For what purposes do school leaders use student assessment data?

This study is part of a broader mixed-methods research project, whose first phase involves a multiple-case study (n=8) (Yin, 2017). Data sources and procedures In the second semester of 2024 and in 2025, school principals were initially contacted to explain the study and invite them to participate. Once this was secured, the schedule for conducting all the data production procedures was arranged with the Head of the Technical Pedagogical Unit (UTP), who also invited teachers from three departments (we requested Spanish, mathematics, and a third department of their choice. Schools selected science or social studies). Data were collected through interviews and observations, and participants read and signed an IRB-approved informed consent. All interviews and observations were audio recorded and transcribed for further analysis. In-depth, hour-long semi-structured interviews were conducted with the school principal (n=8), the UTP (n=8), and individual interviews with three heads of departments (language, math, and either science or social studies (n=24). Questions covered their trajectory at the school, school improvement priorities, structures for teacher collaboration, their assessments of their own and teachers’ data literacy skills, attitudes toward using data to inform instructional decision-making, and the data used by school leaders and the purposes for which it is used. Although we used a structured interview protocol, these interviews share the limitations inherent in self-reported data, including potential participant bias and self-censorship. We also observed department meetings (n=25). The UTP was asked to arrange the observation, where teachers would analyze data. The conversations were audio recorded, and the researchers took field notes to document the activities conducted, the roles of various participants, turn-taking, how the meeting’s purpose was communicated, issues raised, and levels of agreement and dissent among teachers as they discussed those issues. Follow-up group interviews were conducted with teachers who had attended the meetings observed(n=8). For each of the three departments, UTP invited two or three teachers to participate in an hour-long group interview (n=37 teachers). Questions addressed the extent to which the observed department meeting was typical of their data use, how they evaluated the effectiveness of that meeting, and the decisions made based on their analysis. Data analysis The data were first coded by two researchers using the theoretical framework of data purposes developed by Shildkamp and Kuiper (2010). Codes were then compared among the researchers to reach agreement on shared codes and categories (Patton, 2002).

Consistent with the international literature, we identified the same three primary purposes of data use (Schildkamp & Kuiper, 2010). These purposes are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are often combined in creative ways. Despite contextual differences between Chile and Europe, where schools generally have greater autonomy, rely less on standardized testing, and emphasize self-evaluation as a driver of improvement, these three purposes are observed across all eight cases (Schildkamp et al., 2014; Vanari et al., 2025). However, given the characteristics of the Chilean education system, a fourth purpose emerged in two of the eight case studies: the use of data to obtain salary-related benefits. Although this purpose may initially resemble accountability, it differs in nature, as it is not oriented toward responding to external demands (Parcerisa, 2021). The use of data differs between the two cases. In one case, it is explicitly acknowledged; for example, one teacher stated: “I think we analyze data because we lost the incentive. If you had conducted this same study last year, when we had the financial incentive, and now we do not, we would not be analyzing data.” In contrast, in the other case, this purpose is more institutionally masked; nevertheless, teachers also refer to it, stating: “The incentive issue still concerns us a lot—at the end of the day, why lie about it? In Chile, as in studies conducted in Europe, three main uses of data are identified: school development, instruction, and accountability (Schildkamp et al 2013). However, given the idiosyncratic characteristics of the Chilean context, a fourth, economic purpose is added. Using data to position the school in a category that provides teachers with extra income is linked to performance-based incentive schemes, which are embedded within the broader dynamics of marketization that characterize the Chilean education system (Falabella, 2020; Author, 2015).

Author (2015) Falabella, A. (2020). The ethics of competition: accountability policy enactment in Chilean schools´ everyday life. Journal of Education Policy, 35(1), 23-45. Lasater, K., Albiladi, W. S., Davis, W. S., & Bengtson, E. (2019). The data culture continuum: An examination of school data cultures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 533-569. Meyers, C. V., Moon, T. R., Patrick, J., Brighton, C. M., & Hayes, L. (2022). Data use processes in rural schools: management structures undermining leadership opportunities and instructional change. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 33(1), 1-20. Parcerisa, L. (2021). To align or not to align: The enactment of accountability and data-use in disadvantaged school contexts. Educational assessment, evaluation and accountability, 33(3), 455-482. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Schildkamp, K., & Kuiper, W. (2010). Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and teacher education, 26(3), 482-496. Schildkamp, K., Karbautzki, L., & Vanhoof, J. (2014). Exploring data use practices around Europe: Identifying enablers and barriers. Studies in educational evaluation, 42, 15-24. Schildkamp, K., Lai, M. K., & Earl, L. (2013). Data-driven decision making around the world: Challenges and opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer. Silva, L., Contreras, J. & Manzi, J. (2022). Evidence-Informed practice of standardized assessments: The case of Chile. In C. Brown & J.R. Malin (Ed.) The Emerald handbook of evidence-informed practice in education (pp. 153-165). Leeds, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited Vanari, K., Reinaru, D., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2025). Data use for school self-evaluation–The process, factors, and leadership practices in Estonian schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 85, 101465.