Overview
Education data carries special sensitivity. Student records follow individuals through their lives. Learning analytics capture cognitive development patterns. Children—unable to give meaningful consent themselves—require particular protection. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 creates specific obligations for children's data that reshape EdTech product design and institutional data practices.
DPDPA treats children's data distinctively. Processing requires verifiable parental consent. Tracking and behavioural monitoring for advertising is prohibited. These requirements apply to EdTech platforms serving students under 18, creating compliance imperatives that affect product functionality and business models.
The education ecosystem involves complex data flows—from students to institutions, institutions to EdTech providers, platforms to analytics services, and across national borders for global education programs. Each relationship requires contractual treatment addressing consent mechanics, purpose limitations, and the special protections applicable to educational and children's data.
Key Considerations
Children's Consent Architecture
Implementing verifiable parental consent mechanisms that satisfy DPDPA requirements while remaining practical for educational settings.
Institutional Data Agreements
Contracts between schools/universities and EdTech providers addressing student data access, use limitations, and institutional control.
Learning Analytics Governance
Agreements for AI-powered learning systems that analyze student performance, with appropriate oversight and limitation on predictive uses.
Cross-Border Education Data
Contracts governing data flows for international programs, foreign universities, and globally-distributed EdTech platforms.
Student Records Management
Data handling agreements for academic records, transcripts, and certification that may need long-term retention.
Research Data
Agreements enabling educational research using student data with appropriate anonymization and consent frameworks.
Applying the TCL Framework
Technical
- Age verification and parental consent verification systems
- Learning management system data security requirements
- Data anonymization for educational research datasets
- Access controls appropriate to student age and context
- Proctoring and monitoring technology privacy safeguards
Commercial
- Freemium model compliance with children's data restrictions
- Institutional licensing with data protection commitments
- Research data access pricing and restrictions
- Advertising-free children's platforms economics
- Data portability costs for institution-switching students
Legal
- DPDPA children's data requirements implementation
- Institutional data processor agreements
- Parental consent documentation and verification
- Research ethics compliance for education data
- Student records retention and portability obligations
"Children's data protection isn't about compliance—it's about the kind of society we want. Do we want children's learning patterns, struggles, and development tracked and monetized? Or do we want education spaces where children can learn without surveillance? DPDPA points toward the latter."
Common Pitfalls
Consent Assumption
Assuming that school enrollment or platform registration constitutes parental consent for all EdTech data processing.
Advertising Violations
Using children's platform data for targeted advertising or allowing third-party tracking that violates DPDPA children's provisions.
Analytics Overreach
Deploying learning analytics that profile students in ways parents haven't consented to and may not understand.
Institutional Control Gaps
EdTech platforms asserting data rights that override institutional control over student data they've entrusted to the platform.
Research Ethics Shortcuts
Using student data for research without proper anonymization or consent, assuming educational purpose is sufficient authorization.
Education Data Regulatory Framework
DPDPA 2023 creates specific children's data requirements—verifiable parental consent for under-18 processing, prohibition on tracking/behavioural monitoring for advertising purposes. Education institutions are data fiduciaries for student data they control. EdTech providers are typically data processors requiring appropriate agreements. Right to Education Act creates certain record-keeping requirements. University Grants Commission guidelines address student records. AICTE requirements apply to technical education data. NEP 2020 envisions educational data infrastructure (APAAR, DigiLocker) with evolving governance frameworks. Cross-border education programs must address DPDPA transfer requirements. State education department requirements vary. The children's data provisions are among DPDPA's most specific and will generate detailed compliance requirements as rules are issued.
Practical Guidance
- Implement verifiable parental consent—not just click-through acceptance, but verification mechanisms proportionate to data sensitivity.
- Design platforms assuming children's data restrictions apply—disable tracking, profiling, and third-party data sharing by default.
- Structure EdTech-institution relationships with clear data control—institutions should retain fiduciary responsibility and control.
- Build transparency into learning analytics—parents and age-appropriate students should understand how their learning data is used.
- Plan for data portability—students change schools; their educational data should be portable.
- Address long-term retention carefully—educational records may need preservation, but DPDPA requires justification for retention.
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Practice Areas
Need Assistance with EdTech Privacy?
Our team brings deep expertise in sector data privacy matters.