Conference Program

In systems of school evaluation grounded in objective and comparable indicators, robust data are a necessary but insufficient condition to foster improvement, equity, inclusion and wellbeing. A recurrent issue is the diagnostic distance between “distal” indicators mainly used for reporting (e.g., final outcomes, dropout, early results in the subsequent pathway) and the school processes that generate them. In data-based governance settings, this distance is amplified by data infrastructures and performative pressures, leading schools to align, resist, or use indicators instrumentally, rather than as learning resources (Landri, 2021). When school self-evaluation reports (RAV) are interpreted mostly through distal outcomes, schools may produce simplistic causal attributions, under-specified priorities, and compliance-driven practices, ultimately weakening evidence-informed action (Falzetti, 2025).

This paper proposes a peer review framework as an intermediate device between external evaluation and internal self-evaluation, aimed at turning distal indicators into actionable questions and, crucially, at building the proximal evidence needed for sound interpretation. Distal RAV indicators are treated as signals for scoping and prioritizing, not as sufficient grounds for causal hypotheses. The core mechanism is an integrated evidence package where distal indicators are complemented by proximal, multi-source and process-sensitive data (e.g., school climate, wellbeing, engagement, classroom and organizational artefacts, structured observations, stakeholder feedback, and longitudinal trends; Freddano & Stringher, 2021), in line with European peer review approaches developed within VET quality assurance and coherent with the EQAVET perspective on quality cycles (ISFOL, 2012, CEDEFOP, 2015; Evangelista & Fonzo, 2023). This design is meant to mitigate tensions between autonomy, accountability and innovation within the Italian National Evaluation System and to protect teachers’ professional judgement under performance-based accountability (Mentini & Levatino, 2024; Mentini, 2024; Parcerisa et al., 2022).

A second pillar is a differentiated and competent peer review team. Beyond peers from other schools, the protocol includes reviewers with domain-specific expertise related to the focus area and actors located along the educational continuity chain, so that interpretations and recommendations are both rigorous and feasible. The approach also builds on Italian experimentation with school-to-school peer review and visiting as capacity-building devices for self-evaluation and improvement (Giampietro, Poliandri, & Pillera, 2023), and on work highlighting the need for structured reflection on monitoring and evaluation within improvement plans (Freddano & Mori, 2019; Freddano, 2024). The process is presented as a lightweight but structured protocol: (1) preparation of the evidence package and clarification of evaluation questions; (2) triangulation across sources during the peer visit; (3) joint interpretation of evidence and identification of priorities; (4) definition of improvement goals that are observable, time-bound and linked to local “sentinel” indicators; (5) redesign of actions and responsibilities; (6) longitudinal follow-up to document change and unintended effects, consistent with collaborative peer enquiry models (Godfrey, 2020; Ridge & Lavigne, 2020).

The expected output is not a judgement, but a concise set of priorities, redesigned actions and a verification plan aligned with improvement-oriented evaluation. As a brief illustration, the framework is applied to student guidance processes, where distal outcomes alone poorly represent the quality of underlying practices.