Parents’ perceptions of privacy policies and practices for school-issued digital devices: implications for school practices

Abstract

Background:

Digital technology is becoming a central component of schooling. We measured parent perceptions of their children’s digital privacy on school-issued digital devices.

Methods:

We surveyed 571 parents of K-12th grade children, recruited nationally, regarding their child’s use of school-issued devices. Parents reported their awareness of, and ratings of importance for, seven types of privacy policies for school-issued devices.

Results:

About half (45.9%) of children were in K-5th grade and 84.9% attended public school. Most (80.7%) children used a school-issued device and 66.6% took one home during the coronavirus pandemic. Parents most often rated policies for preventing the collection of geolocation (76%) and sharing of data with third parties (75%) as “very important”. However, 35.4% of parents did not know with certainty if their school had any digital policies. Many (55.7%) parents “strongly agreed” their child’s school protected student digital privacy and most (68.1%) felt schools were the most responsible party to do so, yet those ratings differed by parent awareness of privacy policies (p < .05).

Conclusions:

Parents consider digital privacy policies highly important and perceive schools to be responsible for such protections, highlighting the need to support schools in those efforts.

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus pandemic has exponentially expanded online learning across the US and highlighted concerns about children’s privacy when using educational technology (EdTech), including school-issued digital devices, websites, and apps.¹ While the provision of digital devices from schools has been critical to offset existing economic disparities in access to technology needed for remote learning,² the distribution of digital devices to students without fully implementing appropriate digital safety protections may put children at risk. Advances in technology have enabled sophisticated targeted digital data collection.³ For example, in 2015, 67% of websites used by children collected personal information, and 50% of those websites shared that information with third parties.³ In that same study, 22% of websites asked for children’s personal phone numbers and 23% allowed them to upload photos or videos.³ Unfortunately, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a US statute to protect child privacy when online in effect since 2013, has been described as “increasingly ineffective” and widely underenforced.^4,5 To this point, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reported multiple instances of criminal exploitation of EdTech, including extortion, the selling of children’s data on the Dark Web, and even threats of personal violence.⁶ The degree of digital protections that children are afforded in the online setting thus has tangible implications for child health, well-being, and safety.⁷

Unfortunately, the protection of children’s privacy when using school-issued digital devices is inconsistent, and the coronavirus pandemic has increased opportunities for exploiting student data. A 2020 study in the European Union found that cyber-attacks such as phishing and spam campaigns have increased since the onset of the pandemic, as have reports of digital child-abuse attempts.⁸ However, only 59% of school-district administrators (N=475) in the US (2016–2017) reported online privacy training for teachers, and 48% of school districts reported blocking location tracking on school-issued devices.⁹ When educational technology lacks adequate protections, children’s data are also available to third-party companies for targeted marketing purposes.^5,6,10 Children’s exposure to such marketing when engaging in online learning is also a concern,^4,11 yet only 41% of school-district administrators reported an ad-blocking software installed on school devices.⁹

In response to these threats, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends several steps to increase awareness among parents and suggests families research the privacy policies in place on their child’s EdTech;⁶ such an integration between schools and parents supports students’ digital privacy and can increase good digital citizenship among students.¹² Whereas the status of children’s privacy on educational websites and school-issued devices has been studied through reports from school-administrators,⁹ parental perceptions of these issues has not. The goal of this study was thus to describe parents’ perceptions of, including awareness of and attitudes towards, school policies and practices to protect student privacy when using school-issued digital devices to address the intersection of parenting, education, and technology.

METHODS

We recruited parents of students in kindergarten through 12^th grade via Facebook during August 17, 2020 - September 10, 2020 with a paid Facebook advertisement. Social media is a cost- and time-effective method to reach parents; the most recent data from 2014 demonstrate that 74% of US parents with children <18 years old use the internet and 81% of mothers specifically use Facebook.¹³ Our advertisement text read, “Are you the parent of a K-12^th grader? We want to hear from you about your experience with remote learning during the coronavirus pandemic.” It described the survey as requiring 15 minutes to complete and that, upon completion, participants could enter a raffle for one of 20, $50 e-gift cards to a national retailer. Parents who clicked on the advertisement were brought to a secure website and completed a screening questionnaire. Parents in the US who had at least one child in kindergarten through 12^th grade for the 2019–2020 school year whose child participated in remote learning for his/her school after the start of the coronavirus pandemic were eligible. Eligible parents provided consent via an electronic form. Parents who completed the survey had the option of providing their email address to enter the gift-card raffle. The Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at Dartmouth College approved of all study procedures. Our target sample size was 550 completed surveys to achieve a 95% margin of error of <5% at most and 3.0% for a sample proportion of 25%.

Sociodemographic Characteristics

Parents reported sociodemographic characteristics for their child (race/ethnicity) and for themselves (relationship to the child, age, education level, living with spouse or partner, and annual household income). Items included a Prefer not to answer option. Parents also completed a validated, two-item screener for food insecurity¹⁴ by rating how often each of the following statements were true: “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more,” and “The food we bought just didn’t last, and we didn’t have money to get more.” Responses of often or sometimes (versus never) for either item were defined as a positive screen for food insecurity.

Child’s School Characteristics

Parents reported on their child’s grade, school type (public, private non-religious, religious, charter, magnet, home or other), and self-described their school location as urban/city, suburb of a city, or rural, (asked as “What best describes the city/town/location where your child goes to school?”) Parents reported the state where their child went to school and could select prefer not to answer. We combined US states into geographical region per US Census definitions.¹⁵

Characteristics of Remote Learning

Parents reported if their child used a school-issued device before and after the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the usual amount of time per day their child spent/spends on remote learning, the types of platforms their school uses for remote learning, and if social media sites (defined as YouTube, YouTube Kids, Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter), were ever used as part of remote learning.

Parent Awareness and Attitudes of School Policies and Practices

We asked parents whose children used a school-issued device either before or after the start of the coronavirus pandemic about their awareness of and attitudes towards school digital privacy policies and practices. The first of these questions read: “Does your child’s school have any policies or practices to protect student privacy when using school-issued devices?” Response options were yes, no, and I don’t know. The parents who answered yes were then asked to report the presence of seven specific types of policies or practices for digital privacy protection, with response options: yes, no, or I don’t know. These items were informed by a 2017 survey of middle-school administrators, teachers and IT directors recruited nationally⁹ and included 1) blocking access to social media websites and apps, 2) blocking access to other websites and apps, 3) blocking advertisements on websites and apps, 4) preventing the collection and tracking of student activities when online, 5) preventing the collection of a student’s location, 6) preventing the sharing of student data with third-party companies, and 7) policies for school-issued digital devices when used outside of school.⁹ Parent-reported awareness of the seven policy or practice types was summarized as yes (a yes to that specific policy type), no (a no to the first question or to that specific policy type), or I don’t know (an I don’t know to the first question or to that specific policy type) for analyses. For the purposes of our analyses, “definitive answers” include both yes and no responses, while the only nondefinitive answer was I don’t know.

All parents who reported their child used a school-issued device then rated the importance of each of the seven types of policies and practices for digital devices. The leading question was framed as “How important is it to you that your child’s school have a policy for the following when using school-issued devices?” and each of the seven policy types listed above were presented; response options to each item were not at all important, a little bit important, important, and very important. Supplemental Table 1 includes the exact wording for the questions on parent awareness and attitudes.

Parent Ratings of Trust in the School and Responsibility for Privacy Protections

Parents reported their level of trust in their child’s school relative to protecting student privacy by rating their agreement with the statement, “I trust that my child’s school is protecting student privacy when students use school-issued digital devices”; response options were strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, and I don’t know. Parents also answered the question, “Who should be most responsible for keeping student information private when students are using school-issued devices?”; response options were the school, myself, companies that make the educational software, websites or apps and the government.

Statistical Analyses

The analytic sample included eligible parents who completed the consent form and who correctly responded to two focus questions embedded in the survey (such as, This question is to measure your focus. Please select the “Oranges” option below.). A small number of parents completed the survey for two children and responses were limited to the first completed survey among those parents. Characteristics of remote learning were summarized for the entire sample and by children’s grade (K-5^th grade, 6^th-8^th grade, 9^th-12^th grade), children’s race and ethnicity (White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, or other race/ethnicity), annual household income (<$25,000, $25,000 up to $65,000, or ≥$65,000), and school location (urban, suburban, or rural). Statistical comparisons were completed with chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests as appropriate. P-values < .05 were considered statistically significant. Among the subset of parents whose children ever used a school-issued digital device, parent awareness of and attitudes about school policies and practices were summarized overall and compared across child grade, race/ethnicity, household income and school location. A Bonferroni correction was used to account for the four sociodemographic/school comparisons for each of the seven policy or practice types for awareness or attitudes, such that a p-value < .0125 was considered statistically significant. We also compared ratings of trust in the school to protect student digital privacy and separately, ratings of responsibility in protecting student digital privacy, by parent awareness of any school policy or practice to protect student digital privacy using a Fisher’s exact test and chi-square test, respectively. All analyses were completed with the R Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (version 3.6.2).

RESULTS

Seven hundred sixty-three (763) parents completed the screening questionnaire; 719 were eligible and of those, 708 consented. Of those, 647 parents began the survey and 575 passed both focus questions. Four entries were removed because they were second entries from the same parents resulting in an analytic sample of 571 parents. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1. The largest percentage of students (45.9%) were in elementary school (K-5^th grade) and the sample was racially and ethnically diverse. The overwhelming majority of respondents were mothers (89.3%); 57.3% reported a high school education or less, and 41.0% reported an annual household income <$25,000. A majority (75.0%) of household screened positive for food insecurity, which was positively associated with annual household income: 84.6% of those earning <$25,000 screened positive for food insecurity while 78.4% of those earning between $25,000 and $65,000, and 43.0% of those earning ≥$65,000 (p < .001) did.

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characteristics of the study sample.

	N	% (± 95% ME)
Child characteristics
Grade for the 2019–2020 school year
K-5th	262	45.9% (± 4.0%)
6–8th	88	15.4% (± 2.7%)
9–12th	83	14.5% (± 2.7%)
Not reported1	138	24.2% (± 3.3%)
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic	220	38.5% (± 3.9%)
Black, non-Hispanic	128	22.4% (± 3.2%)
Hispanic	128	22.4% (± 3.2%)
Other	93	16.3% (± 2.8%)
Prefer not to answer	2	0.4% (±0.1%)
School characteristics
School type
Public school	485	84.9% (± 3.2%)
Private, non-religious school	8	1.4% (± 0.7%)
Religious school	6	1.1% (± 0.6%)
Charter school	38	6.7% (± 1.8%)
Magnet school	7	1.2% (± 0.6%)
Home schooling	25	4.4% (± 1.4%)
Other	2	0.4% (± 0.3%)
Urban/rural location
Urban/city	269	47.1% (± 4.1%)
Suburb of a city	135	23.6% (± 3.3%)
Rural	167	29.3% (± 3.6%)
US geographical location
Northeast	83	14.5% (± 2.7%)
South	224	39.2% (± 3.9%)
Midwest	132	23.1% (± 3.3%)
West + Pacific	75	13.3% (± 2.5%)
Prefer not to answer	57	10.0% (± 2.2%)
Parent and household characteristics
Age
18–34 years	210	36.8% (± 3.9%)
35–44 years	244	42.7% (± 4.0%)
45+ years	114	20.0% (± 3.1%)
Prefer not to answer	3	0.5% (± 0.3%)
Relationship to the child
Mother	510	89.3% (± 2.8%)
Father	13	2.3% (± 0.9%)
Grandparent	26	4.6% (± 1.4%)
Other	22	3.9% (± 1.3%)
Parent and household characteristics (continued)
Co-habitation status
Does not live with a spouse or partner	196	34.3% (± 3.8%)
Lives with spouse or partner some of the time	27	4.7% (± 1.5%)
Lives with spouse or partner all of the time	330	57.8% (± 4.1%)
Prefer not to answer	18	3.2% (± 1.1%)
Educational status
High school graduate/GED or less	327	57.3% (± 4.1%)
Associate’s degree or vocational college	134	23.5% (± 3.3%)
Bachelor’s degree	66	11.6% (± 2.4%)
Graduate or professional degree (PhD, MD, JD)	41	7.2 % (± 1.8%)
Prefer not to answer	3	0.5% (± 0.3%)
Annual household income
<$25,000	234	41.0% (± 4.0%)
$25,000 up to $65,000	204	35.7% (± 3.8%)
≥$65,000	93	16.3% (± 2.8%)
Prefer not to answer	40	7.0% (± 1.8%)
Household food insecurity in past 12 months
“We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.”
Often true	137	24.0% (± 3.3%)
Sometimes True	277	48.5% (± 4.1%)
Never true	157	27.5% (± 3.5%)
“The food we bought just didn’t last, and we didn’t have money to get more.”
Often true	123	21.5% (± 3.2%)
Sometimes True	242	42.4% (± 4.0%)
Never true	206	36.1% (± 3.9%)
Positive screen for food insecurity2
Yes	428	75.0% (± 3.7%)
No	143	25.0% (± 3.4%)

95% ME: 95% margin of error.

Among 571 parents of school-age children (K-12^th grade) who enrolled in an online survey about remote learning administered via Facebook, August 17, 2020 - September 10, 2020.

¹All parents confirmed they were the parent of a child in K-12^th grade for the 2019–2020 school year as part of the screening process. A technical error resulted in missing data for the child’s specific grade.

²A positive screen for any food insecurity was defined as a response of “often” or “sometimes” to either question.

Most (61.8%) children used a school-issued device before the coronavirus pandemic, and of those, the majority (72.8%) were Google Chromebooks (Table 2). Similarly, most (66.6%) students took a school-issued digital device home during remote learning after the start of the coronavirus pandemic and Chromebooks, again, were the most common device used (73.1%). School-issued devices were more commonly taken home by students in 6^th-8^th grade (76.1%), followed by those in K-5^th grade (65.3%), then 9^th-12^th grade (54.2%) (p = .01). Additionally, 72.1% of children attending schools in urban/city areas brought a device home for remote learning after the start of the coronavirus pandemic, versus 60.7% of students in suburban-located schools and 62.3% of students in rural-located schools (p = .03). There were no differences in those who took a school-issued device home during remote learning by child race/ethnicity or household income. More than one-third (38.0%) of children spent four or more hours on remote learning per day, and the time spent per day trended upward with grade: 35.5% of those in K-5^th grade spent 4 or more hours on remote learning per day while 42.1% of those in 6^th-8^th and 48.2% of those in 9^th-12^th grade (p = .07) did. More than one-third (37.3%) of parents reported their child used one of the listed social media sites as part of remote learning.

Table 2.

General characteristics of children’s use of school-issued devices and remote learning.

	N	% (± 95% ME)
Before the coronavirus pandemic
Did your child use a school-issued digital device?
Yes	353	61.8% (± 4.1%)
No	218	38.2% (± 3.9%)
If yes…
What type of device?
Google Chromebook laptop	257	72.8% (± 4.9%)
Another laptop	44	12.4% (± 3.0%)
iPad/Tablet	91	25.8% (± 4.3%)
Other	38	10.8% (± 2.8%)
Was that device ever brought home for use?
Yes	188	53.3% (± 5.2%)
No	165	46.7% (± 5.1%)
After the start of the coronavirus pandemic
Did your child take home a school-issued digital device for remote learning?
Yes	380	66.6% (± 4.0%)
No	191	33.5% (± 3.8%)
If yes…
What type of device?
Google Chromebook laptop	278	73.1% (± 4.7%)
Another laptop	34	8.9% (± 2.5%)
iPad/Tablet	71	18.7% (± 3.6%)
Other	12	3.2% (± 1.3%)
Did your child use a family owned or other non-school digital device for remote learning?
Yes	358	62.7% (± 4.0%)
No	213	37.3% (± 3.9%)
Time per day spent on remote learning
<2 hours	131	22.9% (± 3.3%)
2 to <4 hours	218	38.2% (± 3.9%)
4 or more	217	38.0% (± 3.9%)
Don’t know	5	0.9% (± 0.5%)
Where did your child complete most of his/her schoolwork that required the internet?
At home	540	94.6% (± 2.2%)
At another parent/caregiver/relative’s home	21	3.7% (± 1.3%)
Other	10	1.8% (± 0.8%)
Did your child’s remote learning involve:
Online class meetings or lectures	494	86.5% (± 3.1%)
Google Classroom	391	68.5%(± 3.9%)
Summit Learning	103	18.0% (± 2.9%)
YouTube, YouTube Kids, Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter	215	37.3% (± 3.9%)

95% ME: 95% margin of error.

Among 571 parents of school-age children (K-12^th grade) who enrolled in an online survey about remote learning administered via Facebook, August 17, 2020 - September 10, 2020.

Parent Awareness of and Attitudes About School Policies and Practices

Analyses of parent awareness and views about school policies and practices were limited to the subset of parents whose children used a school-issued digital device either before or after the start of the coronavirus pandemic (N=461). Approximately half (54.9%) of parents reported yes when asked if their child’s school had any policy or practice to protect student privacy when using school-issued devices, 9.8% reported no, and 35.4% responded I don’t know. Figure 1 presents parents’ awareness for each of the seven policy types. Parent’s reported awareness that yes, the child’s school had that specific policy ranged from 31% to 47% across the seven types, while many parents reported I don’t know for each type. Reports of I don’t know ranged from 40% to 54% and were highest for policies and practices related to the tracking of student online activities (54%), the collection of student location (54%), and sharing of student data with third parties (52%). There were no statistically significant differences in parent awareness of school policies and practices (i.e., rates of yes, no, or I don’t know) by child grade, race/ethnicity, household income, or school location (all p-values > .11).

Figure 1.

Parent Awareness of School Policies or Practices to Protect Student Privacy When Using School-Issued Devices.

Limited to the 461 parents who reported their child used a school-issued digital device before or after the start of the coronavirus outbreak in the US, 2020. Item wording was shortened to ease presentation; see supplemental table 1 for full question text.

Interestingly, parents were likely to rate those policies they had the least certainty about as very important (Figure 2). Specifically, parents rated policies and practices related to the tracking of student online activities, the collection of student location, and sharing of student data with third parties as very important (66%, 76%, and 75%, respectively), along with policies and practices to cover the use of school-issued digital devices when devices are used outside of school (67%). More parents of younger children rated the importance of blocking access to social media as very important than did parents of older children (63.4% of K-5^th graders versus 47.4% of 6^th-8^th graders and 55.4% of 9^th-12^th graders; p = .003). Also, more parents of K-5^th graders rated policies and practices to prevent the sharing of student data with third parties as very important: 82.9% compared to 66.8% of parents of 6^th-8^th graders and 69.2% of 9^th-12^th graders (p = .004). Additionally, parents with a lower household income were more likely to rate policies and practices to prevent the collection and tracking of student activities when they are online as very important; rates were 67.5%, 69.1% and 54.1% for parents with annual household incomes of <$25,000, $25,000 up to $65,000, and ≥$65,000, respectively (p = .005). There were no other statistically significant differences for parent views on policies and practices by child grade, race/ethnicity, household income, or school location.

Figure 2.

Parent Views on School Policies or Practices to Protect Student Privacy When Using School-Issued Devices.

Limited to the 461 parents who reported their child used a school-issued digital device before or after the start of the coronavirus outbreak in the US, 2020. Each item was asked as “How important is it that your child’s school have policies or practices to…”.

Item wording was shortened to ease presentation; see supplemental table 1 for full question text.

Parent Trust in Schools and Certainty of School Policies

Approximately half (55.7%; 257) of parents strongly agreed that they trust their child’s school protects student privacy when students use school-issued digital devices; 35.6% (164) agreed, 4.1% (19) disagreed, 0.2% (1) strongly disagreed, and 4.3% (20) reported I don’t know. Furthermore, parental trust in schools was correlated with their definitive awareness on the presence of school policies to protect student digital privacy (Table 3). That is, among parents who reported yes, their child’s school had any policies to protect student privacy when using school-issued devices, 63.6% strongly agreed that the school was protecting student digital privacy, a rate similar to that among parents who reported no, their child’s school did not have any such policies on school-issued digital devices (64.4%). In contrast to those parents who definitively knew if their child’s school had any policies, only 41.1% of parents who did not know if their child’s school had any policies to protect student privacy when using school-issued devices strongly agreed the school was protecting student digital privacy (p < .001).

Table 3.

Parent awareness of any school policy or practice to protect student privacy when using school-issued devices stratified by parental rating of trust in the school to protect student digital privacy, and, separately, parental rating of primary responsibility to protect student digital privacy.

	Overall	By parent awareness of school policies or practices1
		Yes	No	I don’t know
	n	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	p value
Parent rating of trust in the school: “I trust that my child’s school is protecting student privacy when students use school-issued digital devices.”
Strongly agree	257 (55.7%)	161 (63.67%)	29 (64.4%)	67 (41.1%)	<.001
Agree	164 (35/6%)	73 (28.9%)	13 (28.9%)	78 (47.9%)
Disagree to strongly disagree	20 (4.3%)	11 (4.3%)	2 (4.4%)	7 (4.3%)
I don’t know	20 (4.3%)	8 (3.2%)	1 (2.2%)	11 (6.7%)
Parent rating of responsibility: “Who should be most responsible for keeping student information private when students are using school-issued devices?”
The school	314 (68.1%)	172 (65.2%)	24 (53.3%)	118 (72.4%)	.03
Myself	71 (15.4%)	37 (14.0%)	14 (31.1%)	20 (12.3%)
Companies that make the educational software, websites, or apps or the government2	76 (16.5%)	55 (20.8%)	7 (15.6%)	25 (15.3%)

P values are from chi-square tests.

¹Parent awareness of school policies or practices: “Does your child’s school have any policies or practices to protect student privacy when using school-issued devices?”

²Value includes 72 parents who responded “the companies” and 4 parents who responded “the government”.

Percents sum down the columns to 100%.

Parent Ratings of Responsibility and Certainty of School Policies

Most parents (68.1%; 314) believed the school to be the most responsible for keeping student information private when using school-issued devices; 15.4% (71) responded myself, 15.6% (72) companies that make the educational software, websites or apps, and 4 (1%) the government. Parental ratings of responsibility were also correlated with their definitive awareness on the presence of school policies to protect student digital privacy (Table 3). That is, among parents who reported yes, their child’s school had any policies to protect student privacy when using school-issued devices, 65.2% believed the school was the most responsible and 14.0% believed parents themselves were the most responsible. Among parents who reported no, their child’s school did not have any such policies on school-issued digital devices, 53.3% believed the school was the most responsible while 31.1% believed parents themselves were the most responsible. Finally, among parents who did not know if their child’s school had any policies to protect student privacy when using school issued devices, 72.4% believed the school was the most responsible party to protect student privacy, while only 12.3% responded parents were the most responsible (p = .03).

DISCUSSION

In this sample of 571 parents recruited nationally via social media, most parents considered privacy protections for their child’s school-issued digital devices highly important. These findings were consistent across child grade and other sociodemographic measures. In contrast, parents’ knowledge of the existence of such policies was relatively low, with most parents being unaware if their school had various privacy policies and practices for school-issued devices. Parental awareness of the risks to children while engaging in online learning is critically important to support child safety, independently and in collaboration with schools.⁶ Moreover, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation centers its recommendations for cyber safety around parental awareness,¹⁶ especially important given the lack of school and district level protections.⁸ Thus, the findings of this report are concerning because they highlight a crucial gap in parental awareness of school protections for student digital privacy.

Despite high levels of uncertainty regarding privacy policies and digital protections for children, parents in this study overwhelmingly reported that these protocols were important to them, with three out of four parents rating actions to prevent the collection of student’s geolocation and the sharing of student data with companies as very important. Additionally, more than half (55.7%) of the parents in this sample strongly agreed that their child’s school was protecting student privacy when students use school-issued devices, and parents’ perceived awareness of school privacy policies or practices was positively correlated with trust in the school as well as their own relinquishment of responsibility to protect their children online. Together, findings demonstrate parents’ desire for school policies to protect privacy when students are online and highlight the need for schools to clearly communicate those polices to parents. One way that school administrators could simultaneously communicate with parents about EdTech safety protocols and guide students to make informed decisions when using the technology is by developing responsible use policies (RUPs). RUPs are “an agreement written in simple and accessible language among parents or guardians, students, and school personnel that outlines the terms of responsible use and consequences for misuse.”¹⁶ These policies can help educators guide students to cultivate skill-sets to protect themselves while using the internet¹⁷ and can increase transparency for parents. Those actions may build trust in the school among parents and may help parents understand the risks children face when using school-issued digital devices and in turn, enact safety precautions actions themselves.

However, while our findings highlight the prominent role that parents believe schools have in protecting students online for learning, the risks students face when online are complex and constantly evolving, and many schools lack the financial and technical resources to understand, enact, and monitor evidence-based protections for students.⁹ For example, a 2017 national survey among middle-school administrators and teachers found that school faculty and staff lacked training and understanding about how to protect students online even though they also reported believing privacy protections to be very important.⁹ Our research has thus highlighted a critical gap related to children’s digital safety: most parents want school policies to protect student digital privacy and defer responsibility to schools for those tasks, yet schools require more guidance and resources to do so.⁹

Additionally, legislation protecting children online must be strengthened and enforced to further support schools’ efforts in protecting student digital privacy.⁵ For example, COPPA prevents the collection of personal information from children younger than 13 years of age, including geolocation and persistent identifiers (identifiers unique to the child).¹⁸ However, the lack of enforcement for COPPA limits the program’s effectiveness for young children,⁵ and mounting evidence suggests that COPPA violations are common. One relevant example is Chromebooks, which constituted the majority of devices brought home for remote learning in our study. Google, the parent company of Chromebooks, has faced penalties in the past year for illegally collecting personal information from children without their parents’ consent¹⁹ and is currently facing a major lawsuit alleging illegal tracking of children’s online data via school-issued Google accounts.²⁰ (Google is not the only company violating COPPA. One study of 124 3–5 year old children conducted in 2018–2019 found that 67% of the 451 apps used by children collected persistent identifiers of children and transferred those identifiers to third parties.²¹) Moreover, COPPA only applies to children under the age of 13 yet older children are at risk when online as well. Adolescents aged 13–17 report higher intentions of taking online risks²² and lack cognitive development needed to control urges, making them especially vulnerable to online harm.²³ High-school students have little advantage over their K-5 peers when it comes to awareness of and concern towards their digital privacy, as they tend to report “surprising levels of trust” in EdTech companies and high levels ambivalence towards issues of digital privacy.²⁴ Importantly, all children and adolescents are vulnerable to their data being collected and used for targeted marketing purposes when online. Thus, specific legislation to protect the privacy of all children and adolescents specifically when using school-issued devices and when online for learning purposes is urgently needed.

This study had several strengths. The sample of parents was recruited nationally and was socio-demographically and geographically diverse, and we included questions to filter our inattentive participants during the survey. However, there are study limitations. Our sample was primarily of lower socio-economic status and largely reflected students in public school. Thus, findings may not be generalizable to more affluent populations or students in other school types. Participant responses are self-reported and subject to reporting bias, desirability and recall bias, as with any survey. Our question regarding social media sites grouped together several social media platforms, and we cannot report on specific sites. The item on child’s sex was omitted from the original survey. While this did not impact the implications of our findings, we nevertheless issued a follow-up request regarding sex and received responses from 38% of the sample. This follow-up sample reflected 49% boys, 49% girls, 2% other gender identity, suggesting that the sample reflects a balanced gender distribution. Importantly, we did not measure the true existence of school privacy policies and we cannot report on the actual existence of privacy policies for students in this study.

Conclusions

EdTech is a prominent component of student learning and has become critically important during the coronavirus pandemic. Parents consider policies to protect student digital privacy highly important, yet awareness of specific protections is low, highlighting the need for a more integrated approach between parents and schools to support student digital privacy. Additionally, many parents consider schools to be the most responsible party to protect student digital privacy and trust that schools are protecting students. However, existing data demonstrate that schools need more support, such as evidence-based guidance, to help define and implement policies and practices to protect student privacy. These types of actions are important to build trust between families and schools, and to develop a unified effort to protect students’ digital privacy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH.

Parents consider digital privacy policies highly important and perceive schools to be responsible for such protections, yet schools and school districts need help in order to responsibly safeguard students’ privacy and health. Schools can address this discrepancy by taking steps to both raise parental awareness and to support teachers and administrations in enacting and monitoring privacy policies. One opportunity for educators to help parents is within the parent-teacher conference. In that venue, teachers can work with parents to discuss privacy concerns related to Ed-Tech. They can encourage parents to monitor their child’s use of Ed-Tech for school and report any potential concerns back to teachers and schools. However, many schools need technical support to implement these steps. Therefore, States and the US Department of Education should take an active role to help school districts with providing uniform policies to protect student digital privacy including how to secure school digital devices, how to identify privacy risks for specific websites and apps, and how to monitor student use of devices to ensure privacy is not breached. Importantly, States and the US Department of Education should provide funding for schools specifically for those functions. Also, districts should provide teachers with frequent, up-to-date training and guidance on how to safely use Ed-Tech with their coursework and guidance to students for how to stay safe when online (e.g. not providing any personal information, and clarifying what personal information is). Districts should also provide a list of vetted sites that protect student privacy and protect them from harmful marketing. Additionally, educators and child advocates alike can demand better enforcement of federal protections (e.g., COPPA) to protect student privacy when online and advocate for new laws that go further in protecting students.