The Department for Education (DfE)’s Technology in Schools Survey 2024 to 2025 makes for sobering reading. For years, education policy has marched steadily towards a digital-first model, heralding technology as the solution to everything from teacher workload to inclusivity and future-proofing pupils’ skills. Schools, too, have been eager to embrace devices and platforms – often with the enticing promise of long-term cost savings.
Yet beyond Westminster and Whitehall, the mood is shifting. A growing chorus of parents is beginning to question the creeping dominance of edtech in the classroom. Many are concerned about their children being exposed to endless screen time and a demise in traditional teacher-led education. For others, there is a more urgent concern: the risks arising from what children might be subjected to on school-issued devices.
These anxieties are no longer hypothetical. Last year, children in a Scottish primary school were able to view explicit material on tablets supplied by Glasgow City Council – despite assurances that particular search engines had been blocked. It was only when the worst had already happened that those assurances were revealed to be wrong.
The DfE survey does little to restore confidence. While a significant majority of schools report having education-specific filtering in place, the efficacy of these systems is in question. One in 10 IT leads acknowledged dealing with ‘unauthorised use’ of devices or networks by students – a figure almost certainly underreported, given that another one in 10 simply didn’t know whether such breaches had occurred at all.
Related
Even more concerning is that a number of schools have no monitoring systems whatsoever. Without active oversight, how can any school credibly claim its filtering works and ensure that its pupils are adequately protected?
Where systems do exist, too many institutions appear to adopt a ‘set and forget’ approach. The survey indicates that many only review their filtering and monitoring arrangements sporadically – or reactively, after an incident. It is a governance gap that exposes both pupils and schools to unacceptable risk. The DfE survey covers state schools, but the issues unveiled extend to the independent sector, not least in light of the current difficult financial climate in which independent schools operate. Financial constraints, in both the independent and public sector, exacerbate the risks of inadequate digital protections.
The issue is not confined to the UK. In the United States, litigation is already underway. Two ongoing California cases highlight the range of potential liabilities. In M.C. v Google, a claimant alleges that a school-issued Chromebook facilitated a child’s access to pornography, leading to addiction. In Z.G. v Google, the failure to block Discord is said to have exposed a pupil to grooming and sexual victimisation. Although these claims target one tech giant (prominent in the edtech sector), the principle is clear: if a device or digital ecosystem provided by a school becomes the gateway to harming children, they and their parents are entitled to enforce their legal rights; and schools, faced with such claims will look to the providers whose assurances of adequate inbuilt protection did not withstand scrutiny.
For schools, the message could not be clearer. Now is the time to ensure:
Content from our partners
- Robust filtering and monitoring must be in place, not as a tick-box exercise but as a living, regularly reviewed safety framework.
- Policies need to be comprehensive, clear and consistently implemented, not quietly filed away until something goes wrong.
- Any issues must be addressed immediately, not managed quietly or deferred due to budgetary pressures.
Even if schools do take these steps, it is difficult to imagine the UK avoiding challenges similar to those being seen in the US. Campaigners are vocal, there is huge public support for the need for greater online safeguarding, and the DfE’s own data points to clear systemic weaknesses. The education sector needs to pause and grapple with these issues to avoid putting children at risk, and the wave of litigation that could follow.
Dominic Crossley is a media and privacy partner at Payne Hicks Beach and head of the firm’s dispute resolution department. Ane Vernon is an education disputes partner at Payne Hicks Beach.
