Yes, we worked on data that we submitted informally. Data about, maybe, teacher attendance at school. About the attendance rate, occasionally. I remember making charts for each course and pasting them in the staff room week after week—they showed the number of classes students had had and how many they had missed because the teacher was absent. And that was work we did, with checkered results. Sometimes it went smoothly and sometimes it was a handful.
The same happened with statistics about examining boards. What happened with students that sat for exams? What was the passing rate at examining boards? What happened with students that had had a teacher, for example— I did one thing that was very hard to implement, but eventually it was assimilated in the school: that students didn’t have to sit at the examining board with the teacher that had taught them over the year. For each subject, three examining boards were set up and no one teacher was repeated. The students were allowed to sign up for any of the boards, taking into account the teacher that was part of it.
Because what happened was that many kids failed tests during the year, then they sat at the examining board with the same teacher and again they failed. But what students had to demonstrate was how much they knew, not how well they got on with the teacher that had taught them all year long; and this sparked a lot of complaints, especially from the teachers that were used to failing students, but in the end they could live with it.