A (dis)sufficient?

School in Zeist

A school in Zeist decided to temporarily close the Magister app to parents in November 2024 because students whose parents use Magister experience more performance pressure than students whose parents do not use Magister.[1]

The default setting of student tracking systems is that parents cannot watch in real time. So schools decide if, when and at what level they allow parents to view the student tracking system. This means that schools can choose not to show parents their child's grades, for example, but rather the school timetable. Or to share absences with parents not through the student tracking system but through direct contact.

What is a student monitoring system?

In a student monitoring system, the educational institution keeps track of results and progress about the student, as well as the group and the school as a whole. Examples include administrative data, grades, absenteeism, behavioural records, learning objectives, health information, parental status or social-emotional development. Student tracking systems allow teachers and schools to quickly understand where a student needs extra support. It enables personalised education and helps schools implement more targeted policies.

Primary schools are required by law to work with a pupil monitoring system.[2] For secondary schools, this obligation does not apply. They are, however, obliged to report pupils' progress to their parents, guardians or carers until that pupil reaches the age of majority and has the capacity to act.[3] How this should be done is up to the educational institution.

Dominant role of student monitoring system vendors

In its investigation, the Personal Data Authority describes Education Sector Assessment 2021-2023 that suppliers of student tracking systems and digital resources have a dominant position and can therefore exercise a certain amount of power in the market. This power of suppliers, their lack of transparency and the lack of knowledge among educational institutions make it difficult to determine and, if necessary, enforce appropriate data protection safeguards from suppliers. Also, suppliers do not always want to cooperate with Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) or the software application does not provide sufficient functionalities for logging or deletion of data, preventing the educational institution from complying with the AVG.

Freedom of choice

The dominant position of a few large suppliers of student tracking systems and the dependence on large US cloud providers has limited school boards' freedom of choice. This makes it difficult for school boards to enforce wishes or requirements in the supply. The Human Rights Board states that schools should impose requirements on software providers in terms of equal treatment, privacy, autonomy and transparency. An important part of this is that resources are tested extensively on different groups of students. Schools can help each other by banding together to build expertise and set criteria for software suppliers.

Deployment of US cloud providers

Many student tracking systems are provided by commercial companies that store data in the cloud. This raises questions about who has access to the data and how it is used. The processor agreement with the supplier then states that a sub-processor has been engaged (e.g. Microsoft or Google) but that the data storage takes place in Europe. Contrary to popular belief, data storage in Europe does not make schools immune to - in the case of US providers - US law and data can still be requested by the US government. In terms of complying with the AVG, this means that schools cannot actually properly ensure that the personal data they process is adequately protected.

Too much data

Many student monitoring systems store more data than strictly necessary. Think of sensitive information such as social-emotional analyses or medical data. This increases the risk of misuse, especially if it is not clear why this data is being collected. Being able to properly set and handle retention periods is also essential to prevent too much data being stored for too long.

Access to data

In addition, access to personal data is often not properly protected. For example, because too many rights are granted to school employees, employees can download data onto other (private) devices or create exports from the system that take on a life of their own.

Transparency

The level of transparency that educational institutions provide about the processing of pupil data in pupil monitoring systems varies. Although primary schools are required to use a pupil monitoring system to track pupils' progress and results, the extent to which they communicate what data is collected, how it is used and who has access to it is not always clear. In addition, there are concerns about the use of algorithms within education. For example, adaptive learning systems, which automatically adjust exercises based on student behaviour, can lead to unequal treatment if their operation is not transparent. The Human Rights Board has therefore called on the government to support schools in preventing such risks. Although steps are being taken towards greater transparency in the processing of pupil data, there is still room for improvement, according to Privacy First. It is essential that schools communicate clearly about their data processing practices and that there is oversight to ensure student privacy and rights.[4]

School values and educational vision

The school trial in Zeist to stop parents from accessing their child's grades has been a success, according to its initiators. Parents' and students' reactions to the trial were largely positive. After the several-month experiment, the school has decided to stop showing the grades to parents in the app.[5]

This example shows that schools can make choices about how a student tracking system is deployed. Not only can the sharing of data with parents be turned on or off, all kinds of settings are possible that can reduce privacy risks or adverse effects such as performance pressure. This requires the school to identify which settings are or are not desirable and adjust staff practices accordingly.

Child privacy

Privacy First believes that students in secondary education can reasonably expect certain data about them to be processed, but they should also decide for themselves if and when information is shared. For example, not sharing a (bad) grade in Magister or SomToday yet, but giving the student himself/herself the opportunity to tell his/her parents. But also in the situation where a pupil is absent because of a visit to a doctor, of which the parents were not informed but become so via the student monitoring system, while it concerns an issue for which a teenager does not need parental permission to consult a doctor. The Children's Ombudsman also commented back in 2019: 'In order to be detached from your parents, it is important that not everything is controlled by your parents.[6] Therefore, Privacy First encourages educational institutions to handle student tracking systems consciously and carefully. A privacy-friendly approach contributes to a safe learning environment where data protection and the best interests of the child are paramount.

[1] See School in Zeist discontinues school app Magister because of performance pressure: 'Symptom of meddling' - RTL News A questionnaire sent to some 500 students revealed that students experience achievement pressure because their parents can watch. See also How parents became micromanagers (and students lost their privacy) - The Correspondent.

[2] Article 8(6) Primary Education Act.

[3] Section 23b Secondary Education Act.

[4] Human Rights Board, Government, help schools prevent digital systems from treating their students unequally, 13 May 2024.

[5] Satisfaction with trial to stop parents seeing grades in app - NOS

[6] AOB, Parent peeks into student monitoring system, Education Journal 9 July 2019.