In today’s formal schooling environments in the UK and Europe, children typically need to use digital, online technologies as part of their education. This may be to access learning resources, e-assessment systems, upload homework, contact teachers, work with AI tutors, etc. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office notes children ‘may not be able to choose or opt out of many digital tools their schools adopt’.
In the UK, we might even ask whether it is still possible for a child to enjoy their right to education without using any digital technology at all.
Consider this real-world scenario.
School leadership is introduced to a new educational technology (EdTech) which promises to improve learning efficiencies and reduce staff workload. The school must, of course, balance this with data protection and other safeguarding measures. These are regulated by legal frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or guidance such as the Age Appropriate Design Code. On balance, the school feels the gain would be greater than the potential harms, so decides to proceed with a mandatory implementation of this technology for the whole school.
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states:
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland clarifies that this means adults should simply choose the best course of action for the children in their care. At first glance, this seems common sense. Children need safety and protection from a competent caregiver, as Article 3 of the UNCRC states. Still, it is an interpretive exercise what would be ‘in the best interest’ of a particular child in particular circumstances, for example parental separation.
The General Comment No.25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment echoes that it is a dynamic concept which requires a context-specific assessment. Article 12 states that
in all actions regarding the provision, regulation, design, management and use of the digital environment, the best interests of every child are a primary consideration.
So is it in the best interest of children to implement online, digital technologies as we know them today for their education?[1]
The General Comment No. 25 recognises the many positives that children can gain from online technologies, including the realization of their civil, political, cultural, economic and social rights (Article 4). On the other hand, it also notes the many possible harms that may come from digital technologies, such as discrimination, exploitation, exposure to violence and harmful content, cyber aggression, digital surveillance, and more.
EdTech is rife with arbitrary or unlawful interference with children’s right to privacy, let alone the issues encountered in the wider digital environment. The upcoming EU Digital Fairness Act aims to address some of that commercial exploitation, in the form of dark patterns, personalised advertising, or addictive design.
To an extent, much of this can be said of children’s participation in the non-digital world too. Everyday society offers the opportunity for children to realise the range of their rights to a full extent, whilst also harbouring the potential of much harm. Unless we consider the model of childhood development for the fictitious child Émile, described in the book Émile by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, we cannot reasonably suggest that children are withdrawn from digital society altogether.
Children must be taught to use technology for the exercise of their rights, and as part of their development into competent adults and citizens of the digital world. Articles 50-57 of the General Comment No. 25, for example, emphasise the importance of free but guided and protective information access for children. Digital technology can be supportive of the child’s right to freedom of expression, thought, and religion. It may even offer valuable opportunities beyond their direct family, friends, and home communities. So if a school, in its form as a guiding and protective entity, can facilitate this for children, it would be in their best interest.
That said, is it reasonable to suggest that the only way for a child in the UK or Europe to exercise their right to education is by agreeing to a sprawl of technologies?
It leaves an uncomfortable tension. For example, it is alarming that tech giants like Google LLC have been found to illegally harvest children’s data on multiple occasions, yet more than 170 million students and educators are purported to use the Google Workspace for Education worldwide. It is entirely possible for children to exercise their right to education without the Google Workspace, yet for more than 170 million of them, it may not be a choice. Returning to the use of technology as ‘the best interests’ in the exercise and development of digital citizenship, this could still be achieved without mandating this particular technology as the general, non-negotiable mode within their schooling.
The Heritage School in Cambridge, for example, is somewhat of an anomaly in in that technology is taught, but not relied upon because you do not need it to enable children to thrive academically. In fact, there are wider critiques on EdTech’s pedagogical merits altogether.
There may be other, alternative schooling systems such as self-steering approaches within home education, or Waldorf and Montessori schools for early years. But these options remain ‘alternative’, e.g. different from the default option that is technology-pervaded.
Speaking to school leadership and data protection officers, I have learned that the Google Workspace is much appreciated for being a free platform in an expensive world with dwindling EdTech budgets for schools. Also, the tech giant can offer a level of cybersecurity that perhaps smaller companies or in-house platforms could not. That speaks to the best interest of the child.
But are we building walls around children to ‘protect’ them (which is the exercise of best interest), yet that places them under constant, commercial dataveillance? Is that still in their best interest? Especially if the pedagogical benefits are unclear, and the range of harms seemingly ever-expanding?
An additional complexity may occur where a child or their parent (or guardian or caregiver) opposes that particular technology use in the school. Children and their families express concerns over data collection and the reproduction of gender stereotypes, for example. The balancing of best interests may lead to court cases or leave parents no choice but to withdraw their children from a school. The question remains to which viable alternative they might turn to instead.
Overall, ‘the best interest’ of the child remains an interpretive exercise, but one that must be revisited more firmly in schools’ implementation of technology today.
Despite new efforts in legislating fair and lawful technologies, the current state of play seems to harbour many offences and harms. At the same time, evidence is scarce that current technology’s educational benefits are indeed worthwhile. This poses serious questions for the validity of pervasive technology integration as part of standard school practice when considering the best interests of the child.
[1] Also to note, some technology is purpose-built as EdTech to support learning and teaching activity, or the organisational and administrative role of schools. But schools also implement much general use technology for an educational purpose.
