Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

To resist, or to align? The enactment of data-based school governance in Italy

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. From now on, we will use the following fictional Latin names to talk about these schools: ‘Equitas', 'Migrantes', 'Astra', and 'Spartacus.'.

References

  • Ball, S. J., & Maroy, C. (2009). School’s logics of action as mediation and compromise between internal dynamics and external constraints and pressures. Compare, 39(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920701825544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: Some necessary but insufficient analyses. Discourse, 32(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J., Junemann, C., & Santori, D. (2017). Edu.net: Globalisation and Education Policy Mobility. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, A., Ball, S. J., & Maguire, M. (2011a). Introduction to semi-special issue: Theorising and researching policy enactment in schools: Policy enactments in schools introduction: Towards a toolbox for theory and research. Discourse, 32(4), 581–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011b). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601555.

  • Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 9(4), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2011.626729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couldry, N., & Powell, A. (2014). Big Data from the bottom up. Big Data and Society, 1(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714539277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decuypere, M. (2016). Diagrams of Europeanization: European education governance in the digital age. Journal of Education Policy, 31(6), 851–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1212099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decuypere, M. (2019). Open education platforms: Theoretical ideas, digital operations and the figure of the open learner. European Educational Research Journal, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118814141.

  • Decuypere, M., Landri, P., & Decuypere, M. (2020). Critical studies in education governing by visual shapes : University rankings, digital education platforms and cosmologies of higher education platforms and cosmologies of higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 00(00), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1720760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P. (2005). New public management is dead–long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-Network Theory and Education. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gorur, R. (2018). Escaping numbers? Intimate accounting, informed publics and the uncertain assemblages of authority and non-authority. Science and Technology Studies, XX(X), 1–20. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/tacruz/Dropbox (CSU Fullerton)/READ/Gorur2018.pdf.

  • Grimaldi, E., & Serpieri, R. (2016). Scuole a “prova” di Invalsi: la valutazione tra riflessività e fabbricazione. In P. Landri & A. M. Maccarini (Eds.), Uno specchio per la valutazione della scuola. Paradossi, controversie, vie d’uscita (pp. 65–91). Milano: Franco Angeli.

  • Grimaldi, E., Landri, P., & Serpieri, R. (2016). NPM and the reculturing of the Italian Education System. The making of new fields of visibility. In New Public Management and the Reform of education. European Lessons for policy and practice (pp. 96–110). London: Routledge.

  • Gurova, G., & Camphuijsen, M. K. (2019). School actors’ enactment of a performative accountability scheme in Russia: Tensions, dilemmas and strategies. European Educational Research Journal, 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119856261

  • Hartong, S., & Förschler, A. (2019). Opening the black box of data-based school monitoring: Data infrastructures, flows and practices in state education agencies. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 205395171985331. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719853311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INVALSI. (2018). Rapporto prove INVALSI 2018, 1–75. https://www.invalsi.it/invalsi/doc_evidenza/2018/Rapporto_prove_INVALSI_2018.pdf

  • Kitchin, R. (2014). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. SSRN Electronic Journal, 4462(October), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2515786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landri, P. (2018). Digital Governance of Education. Technologies, Standards and Europeanization of Education. Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landri, P. (2019). Cartographies of the digital governance of education. In S. Sellar, R. Gorur, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education Comparative Methodology in an Era of Big Data and Global Networks. Routledge.

  • Landri, P. & Vatrella, S. (2019). Assembling digital platforms in education policy. Scuola Democratica, 3, Settembre-Dicembre, 529–550. https://doi.org/10.12828/95947.

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letizia, G., Poliandri, D., Quadrelli, I., & Romiti, S. (2016). L ’ autovalutazione in Italia. Istanza di rendicontazione o sfida per migliorarsi? Scuola Democratica, 2, 467–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Ball, S. (2015). ‘Where you stand depends on where you sit’: The social construction of policy enactments in the (English) secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(4), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.977022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muzzioli, P., Perazzolo, M., Poliandri, D., & Quadrelli, I. (2016). La qualità del percorso di autovalutazione. Scuola Democratica, 2, 421–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlberg, P. (2011). The fourth way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9157-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2016). ‘There’s so much data’: Exploring the realities of data-based school governance. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115602909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., & Johnson, N. (2016). Toward a digital sociology of school. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. McMillan Cottom (Eds.) Digital sociologies (pp. 143–158). Policy Press.

  • Souto-Otero, M., & Beneito-Montagut, R. (2016). From governing through data to governmentality through data: Artefacts, strategies and the digital turn. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115617768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verger, A., Parcerisa, L., & Fontdevila, C. (2019). The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: A political sociology of global education reforms. Educational Review, 71(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1522045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J. (2017). Data, democracy and school accountability: Controversy over school evaluation in the case of DeVasco High School. Big Data & Society, 4(1), 205395171770240. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717702408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, B. (2016a). Digital education governance: An introduction. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115616630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, B. (2016b). Digital education governance: Data visualization, predictive analytics, and ‘real-time’ policy instruments. Journal of Education Policy, 31(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1035758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, B. (2017). Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and Practice. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNR-IRPPS, National Research Council – Institute of Research On Population and Social Policies, Fisciano, SA, Italy

    Paolo Landri

Authors
  1. Paolo Landri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Landri.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Landri, P. To resist, or to align? The enactment of data-based school governance in Italy. Educ Asse Eval Acc 33, 563–580 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-021-09367-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-021-09367-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation