The  Council of Europe Platform on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity in Education (ETINED), together with UNESCO, organised the first ever European workshop on Open School Data on 29 April 2026 in Strasbourg. Parents International was invited to contribute to the discussion in a panel on stakeholder perspectives together with the representatives of school leaders (ESHA), secondary school students (OBESSU) and researchers.

Through our research, especially the engagement in the EFFEct project, we have worked with open school data, a new topic for most education stakeholders. It used to be a territory primarily for statisticians. However, having relevant and reliable data available is not only crucial support for evidence-informed policy making, but also shifts power towards parents and families by making school systems more transparent. Parents International’s main role in this field is to ensure that the relevant questions are asked at data collection and interpretation, but also to ensure that data is understood and well used. So, we do what we always do: research, advocate and train.

In our contribution, we framed open school data in the reality of a growing distrust in school systems by parents, a decreasing relevance of school, a sharp decline of basic skills acquisition in Europe, and the need to educate passionate learners who will continue studying through life.

The basis of the discussion was the very recent 9^th volume of ETINED on Open School Data in European Education Systems. This publication provides detailed information on what kind of data on school is open and for whom in different Council of Europe member countries. Some countries publish league tables, some deliberately don’t. Some countries make information about the qualifications of teachers in any given school publicly available while others keep this close.

Some countries have dedicated portals and/or publications with open school data, in the case of others this information can only be gathered via school websites. Some make raw data available, some provide visualisation, some offer both. The data that is openly available for the general public may be a different set from the data available for school operators. One thing is clear from user data: parents, students, education research and education policy making are all turning to open school data more often than before.

Parents can use open school data to choose a school for their children based on traditional indicators such as academic results, progression rates, class size, teacher qualifications, student-teacher ration, student demographics, or inclusivity indicators. They can also use it to understand quality beyond rankings by checking well-being indicators, dropout and absenteeism rates, extracurricular offers, and support services provided by the school.

It helps asking better questions about the school. Instead of generic impressions, it can help parents figure out how a school supports students who struggle, or what explains results over time. It helps parents to become better advocates of their own children vis-á-vis the school by identifying gaps in support, or comparing what is promised and what actual data shows. It help parental engagement with school more meaningful. Data supports meaningful dialogue instead of emotional or anecdotal discussions.

But for available open school data to be really useful, there is a need for clear explanations (not just raw numbers), context, balance (of academic, well-being and inclusion data), careful and unbiased guidance on interpretation, as well as full transparency about data collection and handling. Without careful design, open school data can mislead, overwhelm, and reinforce inequality. 

The authors used desk research methods to create the publication, and just by looking at the analysis, it became clear that open school data is not always easy to find or easy to interpret. But these are crucial challenges. Open school data is a powerful tool if it is relevant, understandable and easy to compare (in the European context even cross-border). One example that was mentioned several times during the discussion was a piece of data from Lithuania: you can see if a school has its own swimming pool or sports centre, but not whether they have access to one, e.g., operated by the local municipality.

Another key question is the trustworthiness of data. It is only useful for real-life decisions if we believe them. Trust may be missing at the point of collection if parents and students have privacy concerns, but also if the school has an interest in e.g., asking weak students to not participate in a competence assessment. Trust may also be harmed by countries only publishing oversimplified data, but also if they use too much jargon in their publications.

Most people, even very highly educated ones are not data scientists, so phrases like ‘standard deviation’ may make data undecipherable. Trust may also be undermined if what really matters is missing from the available datasets, but important factors such as well-being, supporting creativity and critical thinking, or school climate and relationships are often difficult to measure.

The availability of open school data may also amplify inequalities. More educated or resource-rich parents tend to use data mor effectively, making the benefits disproportionate. Most of the speakers, including ourselves, emphasised that increasing data literacy (of teachers, of school leaders, of parents and of students alike)  in the times of datafication would be of crucial importance. At the same time, we have reminded ourselves and others that open school data is not enough to make the right decision – be it school choice or national education policy ones – without understanding what is behind the numbers, and that requires qualitative research as well as public scrutiny.

Eszter Salamon