The School App and the Parent's Objection
A secondary school adopts a parent-communication app. Parents must register with name, email, phone, and child's name and class. The app also collects read receipts showing whether a parent opened each message, and a 'wellbeing check' asks parents to rate their child's mood weekly; results are visible to form tutors. A parent refuses to register, saying she does not want her mood ratings stored and prefers paper letters. The school says the app is mandatory for safeguarding and that read receipts prove messages were seen. The school has 900 pupils and has not done a data protection impact assessment. Some parents share custody and the app only allows one primary contact per child.
1. Is the app mandatory? Assess the school's 'safeguarding' justification for each data element.
Read the worked answer
'Mandatory' must be justified purpose by purpose, not as a package.
- Contact details and child/class: necessary to deliver school communications; a public-task basis is plausible. But a paper alternative should remain for those who cannot or will not use the app.
- Read receipts: useful but not essential for safeguarding. If relied on to prove a message was seen, that is a monitoring purpose needing its own justification and transparency. A parent cannot be forced to generate behavioural data as the price of receiving essential information.
- Weekly mood ratings: this is health-adjacent special category data about a child, collected from a parent and visible to tutors. 'Safeguarding' is too broad to justify routine mood scoring of all pupils; it needs a specific, evidenced purpose, a lawful condition, and strong safeguards - or it should be dropped/opt-in with support offered.
The blanket 'mandatory' claim is not defensible; the school should separate essential communications from optional monitoring features.
2. The parent objects and asks for paper letters. What should the school do, and what does it owe other parents?
Read the worked answer
- Provide the paper alternative. Where processing relies on public task, an objection must be considered; if there are no overriding grounds for the specific element, the school must stop that processing for her. Essential communications can still be delivered on paper.
- Stop the mood ratings for her child unless it can show compelling legitimate grounds - unlikely for a general wellbeing score.
- Transparency: tell all parents what is collected, why, who sees it, retention, and that alternatives exist. The current 'mandatory' framing is misleading.
- Custody issue: a single primary contact excludes the second parent, who may have rights to information. The school should allow multiple contacts or a defined process.
- DPIA: a mood-monitoring feature for children is high risk; the school should pause it and carry out a DPIA before continuing.
3. What should the DPIA cover, and what should happen to the mood feature in the meantime?
Read the worked answer
DPIA content:
- Description of processing: data elements, flows, who accesses mood scores and read receipts, retention.
- Necessity and proportionality: is mood scoring necessary for the stated purpose? Could a lighter method work?
- Risks to pupils and parents: misclassification, stigma, disclosure to tutors, exclusion of non-app families, custody gaps.
- Measures: minimise (drop or opt-in mood feature), restrict access, define retention, provide paper route, multiple contacts, clear notices, staff training.
- Consultation where appropriate (parents, and advice if residual risk is high).
Interim: the mood feature should be suspended pending the DPIA unless the school can show it is necessary and safe now; read receipts should be transparent and not used to pressure parents. The DPIA should be reviewed and the outcome documented, with the school able to show it weighed the risks rather than assuming safeguarding settles the question.