Digital platforms and child protection in schools: A perspective from the educational community

In recent years, education systems have experienced a remarkable acceleration in the incorporation of digital technologies, a process that intensified decisively during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Spanish context, this period acted as a catalyst for a transition that was already underway, positioning digital platforms as essential elements for ensuring the continuity of school activity. The widespread adoption of these digital environments created new opportunities related to communication, management, and teaching, but it also raised significant questions about data protection, digital security, and, in particular, child protection.

It is within this context that the project “Digital Platforms and Datafication in Primary Education in Spain: Child Protection in a Context of Educational Digitalization (DigiProtEd)” (PID2022-137033NA-I00, 2023–2026) is framed, developed in the autonomous communities of Catalonia, Castilla-La Mancha, and the Valencian Community. The project aims to analyze the socio-educational effects derived from the use of digital platforms and data storage and management processes in the field of primary education, with special attention to the implications for child protection in these contexts.

To date (Dec-2025), two phases of the research have been completed. The first consisted of the analysis of thirty regulatory and policy documents, accompanied by thirteen interviews with experts. The second phase focused on fieldwork through thirteen case studies in primary schools across the three autonomous communities, including interviews with school leadership teams and digital coordinators, as well as focus groups with teachers, students, and families from the final cycle of primary education.

In very brief terms, the results so far show, first, that the digital ecosystem of schools in Catalonia is characterized by a strong presence of commercial digital platforms, used across most of the schools studied. By contrast, in Castilla-La Mancha and the Valencian Community, public administrations provide institutional platforms whose use takes priority over commercial alternatives, which require authorization to operate in these territories. This situation creates a more unified and regulated ecosystem. In contrast, Catalonia presents a more fragmented environment, where the coexistence of multiple platforms responds to internal decisions by each school and to specific operational needs. This fragmentation, while providing flexibility, also implies greater diversity of practices, usage configurations, data protection frameworks, and potentially inequalities between schools. Nevertheless, the lack of flexibility in other autonomous communities represents a burden for teachers, who at times become entangled in bureaucratic practices or experience reduced professional autonomy.

Regarding actions linked to the integration of digital platforms and data management, the results point to common patterns in teacher training. In most schools, professional development is mainly oriented toward technical and instrumental aspects: learning to operate within digital environments, solving everyday problems, or becoming familiar with basic functionalities necessary for administrative or pedagogical tasks. There are hardly any spaces for critical reflection on key issues such as data management, the role of algorithms, technological sustainability, or the pedagogical and social impact of growing school datafication.

Although some schools develop specific initiatives in critical digital literacy—either promoted by digital coordinators or supported by regional programs—these are usually isolated and do not constitute a systematic training approach. Even school leadership teams acknowledge that their capacity to provide continuous, in-depth, and critical training is limited, and they point to the need for more structured institutional support that goes beyond merely solving technical problems.

Student training reveals more pronounced inequalities between communities and between schools. Although some form of digital literacy is promoted in all cases, the predominant approach is again instrumental: learning to use devices, manage platforms, or resolve technological incidents related to academic work. The development of competencies related to digital identity, data footprints, platform functioning, or the risks associated with the exploitation of personal information is less common. In some Catalan schools, external interventions have been observed, where local police forces deliver talks on cybersecurity. However, while positively valued, these initiatives have limited scope and do not replace the need to systematically integrate critical digital education content into the school curriculum.

With regard to how educational communities use digital platforms, common patterns are identified across schools, though nuanced by internal dynamics and local characteristics. One of the most widespread uses is communication. Schools systematically rely on platforms designed to facilitate contact with families, consolidating these tools as central channels for sending notices, disseminating information, managing incidents, or accessing school resources. These platforms are also used for internal coordination among teachers and for operational communication with students, reinforcing the organizational functionality of the digital ecosystem.

At the same time, schools use platforms intended for institutional management. These tools allow for recording academic information, organizing schedules, administering enrollment, or monitoring assessment processes. These uses are mainly carried out by teachers and leadership teams and are associated with administrative tasks that have historically been part of school functioning. While the digitalization of these processes has facilitated certain dynamics, it has also increased dependence on systems that concentrate growing volumes of personal data, thereby heightening obligations and risks related to data protection.

Pedagogical uses constitute the most heterogeneous domain. Educational platforms are used to share materials, manage assignments, provide feedback, or complement teachers’ explanations. However, not all observed uses fully respond to a clear pedagogical purpose. In some cases, digital tools are employed for repetitive or decontextualized activities, motivated more by the availability of technology than by well-founded didactic decisions. This situation blurs the boundary between educational and instrumental use, with the risk that the massive incorporation of platforms may outpace the pedagogical reflection that should guide it.

Finally, personal or non-school uses of platforms and applications emerge, mainly among students. Although these uses usually occur outside the school environment, their presence is also detected in classrooms, especially through personal devices or access to websites and applications not included in the school’s pedagogical repertoire. These uses introduce additional risks related to exposure to inappropriate content, data generation in unregulated environments, and the permeability between school and personal spaces. Although their structural incidence is lower, they represent a growing phenomenon that requires attention due to their capacity to modify schools’ digital dynamics rapidly and unpredictably.

Overall, we observe that educational digitalization in primary education has become a complex process, marked by tensions between organizational needs, pedagogical expectations, and child protection requirements. The main challenge lies in ensuring that pedagogy and critical reflection guide technological integration, preventing intensive, fragmented, or uncritical platform use from determining the direction of the educational project.