Understanding the Risks of EdTech: A Call to Action for Educators and Parents

The Hidden Dangers of Educational Technology

After years in staffrooms and leadership briefings, I’ve seen a troubling pattern emerge. Decisions about which technologies to use are often made by people who lack a clear understanding of what these tools do. This isn’t just a vague concern; it’s a specific issue. The adults responsible for our children—those who sign permission slips and approve software—often don’t know what data is being tracked.

This isn’t due to a lack of care. Most adults are doing their best with the limited information they have. They often don’t know what questions to ask, which is why they seek my help to navigate these complexities.

The Trust Factor

For a long time, raising these concerns has been seen as overly intense. Responses often include, “The school is using a free version of this platform,” or “Parents just sign off without understanding.” Many believe the benefits outweigh the risks. They trust that the department has done its due diligence. But we need to ask ourselves: has that trust been earned?

We now have real, independent Australian evidence from the UNSW study, which anyone can read in full at this link. The findings are alarming. Nearly nine in ten educational apps start transmitting data before a child even interacts with them. This happens before login, before a consent form is signed, and before a teacher introduces the platform. Data begins moving immediately, building profiles without any meaningful interaction from the child.

This confirms what many of us have been trying to communicate for over a decade. The real risk isn’t what children do in these environments; it’s what the environment does to them from the moment they enter. We must consider the long-term implications of this data collection.

Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Reality

In our professional development sessions, we often discuss the gap between policy and proof. Schools have policies and acceptable use agreements, but they lack visibility into what data is collected and where it goes. Parents rarely give informed consent. They don’t know how their child’s data is stored or how to retrieve it if needed.

The UNSW research highlights that this gap is systemic. Only about a quarter of the apps examined were consistent with their own privacy policies. Many claimed minimal data collection while transmitting persistent identifiers almost immediately. This is why I advocate for a different approach. Compliance doesn’t equal safety. Somewhere in the middle, there’s a staff member using tools they don’t fully understand, and a young person whose parents are relying on measures that may not be effective.

Right now, our schools operate on a model of assumed trust. If it’s approved, it’s safe. If it has a policy, it’s compliant. If it’s widely used, it’s trusted. Yet, beneath these assumptions lies a reality of continuous data extraction. Children are caught in this misalignment, waiting for adults to notice.

The Right Technology Matters

I firmly believe in the importance of using the right technology—tools that have undergone thorough privacy and risk assessments. My concern stems from how uncritically some systems have been integrated into classrooms. We are placing tools in the hands of children and educators that shape behavior, track interactions, and build identifiers, often without transparency.

Teachers face immense pressure to adopt new technologies. Schools are expected to manage risks without the necessary tools to see them. Parents may think these tools foster connection, and in some ways, they do. However, children are expected to understand systems that the adults around them can’t fully explain.

The UNSW researchers describe this as a culture of compliance, but it’s more than that. It’s a culture of outsourced responsibility. Parents assume schools have vetted the tools. Schools assume departments have done their due diligence. Departments trust vendors to be compliant. Yet, amidst these well-meaning assumptions, data is already moving—before anyone has asked meaningful questions.

A Shift in the Conversation

This is where we need to shift the conversation. We now have empirical evidence showing that data collection is immediate, consent is often bypassed, and policies are practically unreadable. This isn’t a future problem; it’s happening now, in the very rooms where children learn.

After years of advocating for awareness, I feel a sense of relief that we finally have concrete evidence to support our concerns. It’s time to change the conversation. We must focus on accountability, foreseeable risks, and whether we, as a community, are prepared to safeguard the systems we’ve allowed into our children’s learning environments.

This isn’t a task for one person or one school. It requires collaboration. Those who have been in the field for years must work with those currently managing these classrooms. Together, we can build something more thoughtful than what we inherited.

The Path Forward

The tools are already in our classrooms. What remains is whether the adults responsible are willing to ask the tough questions about what these tools are truly doing. When they’re ready to ask, there are many of us who have been waiting to help answer.

Let’s take this opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue. We owe it to our children to ensure their educational environments are safe and supportive.

Contact us at hello@ctrlshft.global for information on how we can help.