The diffusion of national standardized testing, large-scale survey assessments and the promotion of policies of self-evaluation are making large amounts of data on education systems available and transforming schools into collecting units for a notable range of educational, institutional and socioeconomic indicators. The datafication and related digital technologies for collecting, analysing, retrieving and displaying data activate, at least in principle, new spaces of visibility and forms of school data-based managerialism (Williamson, 2017). While the policy of transparency is oriented to the development and consolidation of data-based school governance (Selwyn in European Educational Research Journal, 15, 54–68, 2016), its implementation in practice remains an open question. It solicits the analysis of the enactment of school data infrastructures to understand their mobilization in the governance of schooling. Schools can align with digital technologies and data, or they can resist these in many ways. By drawing on a multi-sited ethnography on the development and consolidation of the digital governance of education in Italy (Landri, 2018), I will display how schools can align, imitate, and fabricate their data, use them partially and instrumentally, gaming, or opting-out from the current regime of accountability. These findings complexify a typology of resistance to the digitalization proposed by Souto-Otero and Beneito-Montagut (European Educational Research Journal, 15, 14–33, 2016). They trouble the either/or logic that presents ‘alignment’ and ‘resistance’ as they were different alternatives to underline the subtleties of the policy enactment of the data-based school governance. The investigation illustrates that the space of the school agency is not entirely lost: the destiny of the digital governance of education; in other words, is not inevitable. It draws attention to the singularity of the schools concerning the policies of digital accountabilities. The singularity is a capacity to react that depends ultimately on the sedimented circuits of knowledge. These latter ones orient in different ways how noticing, interpreting and drawing conclusions from data.

国家标准化考试的普及、大规模调查评估和自我评估政策的推广，正在提供大量关于教育系统的数据，并将学校转变为一系列显着的教育、制度和社会经济指标的收集单位。用于收集、分析、检索和显示数据的数据化和相关数字技术至少在原则上激活了新的可见空间和基于学校数据的管理主义形式（威廉姆森，2017 年）。虽然透明度政策面向基于数据的学校治理的发展和巩固（塞尔温在欧洲教育研究杂志，15, 54–68, 2016)，它在实践中的实施仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。它征求对学校数据基础设施制定的分析，以了解它们在学校教育治理中的动员。学校可以与数字技术和数据保持一致，也可以通过多种方式抵制这些。通过利用关于意大利教育数字治理发展和整合的多站点民族志（Landri，2018 年），我将展示学校如何调整、模仿和伪造他们的数据，部分地和工具性地使用它们，游戏，或选择退出当前的问责制度。这些发现使 Souto-Otero 和 Beneito-Montagut（欧洲教育研究杂志，15, 14–33, 2016)。他们对呈现“一致”和“抵抗”的非此即彼的逻辑感到困扰，因为它们是强调基于数据的学校治理政策制定的微妙之处的不同替代方案。调查表明，学校代理的空间并没有完全消失：教育数字化治理的命运；换言之，并非不可避免。它提请注意学校在数字问责政策方面的独特性。奇点是一种反应能力，它最终取决于知识的沉淀回路。后者以不同的方式确定如何注意、解释和从数据中得出结论。