Questions from schools, DPOs and partners.

Class2Class is an online platform where teachers connect their classrooms with classrooms in other countries and run structured collaborative projects together, aligned to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Primarily teachers in primary and secondary education, and their students. Schools and institutional partners participate around them rather than as the day-to-day users.

No. Class2Class is a for-profit company with a social mission.

The legal entity is Class2Class ApS, a Danish company, CVR 44991071, registered at Østerbrogade 148, 1th, 2100 København Ø, Denmark. Danish and EU law are the primary regime.

The long-term model is to keep the platform free for teachers and students and to earn revenue from institutions: corporate partnerships, foundation grants, international organisations, premium school services, institutional impact reporting, teacher professional development and school administration tools.

Yes, and the intention is to keep it that way. Teachers and students are not charged and there is no paid tier for them.

Partners fund and sponsor educational initiatives, gain visibility as supporters, and receive evidence of educational impact. They do not get access to classrooms, students or teachers.

No. Class2Class is not a marketing channel to children, and partners do not advertise or promote products to students.

No. The platform carries no advertising.

A teacher creates a project or joins an existing one, is matched with a partner classroom in another country, and the two classes work through a shared structure of activities toward a common output. Teachers run the pedagogy; the platform provides the structure, the space and the evidence.

Teachers find and connect with each other through the platform's Connect area, based on subject, age range, language, SDG interest and availability. Matching is teacher-to-teacher.

The teacher's name, their school, their country, and the professional profile they chose to publish (subjects, languages, interests, availability). No pupil-level information about another classroom is exposed.

Inside the platform, through project chat and teacher-to-teacher messaging. Live classroom meetings happen on external video tools that the teachers choose and schedule.

Both are supported, and the teachers decide. Most collaboration is asynchronous exchange; live classroom meetings and small-group meetings are optional additions.

No. A project can be completed entirely asynchronously.

The participating teachers. Class2Class's role is to give them the tools, the rules and the reporting channel; supervision of pupils is the teacher's and the school's responsibility.

Yes, and many do. Teachers voluntarily exchange contact details with their partner teacher, which is outside the platform and outside our control. Student contact information must never be exchanged.

No. A teacher can only open a one-to-one conversation with a student they teach. Violations of the conduct rules can result in account deletion.

Only students aged 16 or over, or younger students whose parental consent has been verified, and only with other students who also pass that same check. Everyone else has no direct student-to-student messaging at all.

Yes, within their own project. Project chat is scoped to the project's participants and a student can only ever see the projects they belong to.

They cannot use the product. Instead of the dashboard they see a consent-pending screen until the consent is verified.

Safeguarding is treated as an ongoing operational process rather than a policy document: written policies, teacher-mediated interaction enforced in the platform's authorisation model, content moderation, an in-product reporting channel, an anonymous reporting route, and teacher education.

Yes. It is published at /child-safeguarding/ and available in full to schools and partners on request.

Yes, published at /code-of-conduct/. It applies to everyone who represents Class2Class, including staff, contractors and partners.

The participating teacher and their school. Class2Class provides the platform, the rules, the moderation tools and the reporting channel; it does not and cannot supervise a classroom.

Structurally, by removing the routes through which they would happen. Teachers cannot message students outside their own teaching relationship, group chats can only be created by teachers, under-16 students without verified parental consent have no direct messaging at all, and every one of those rules is enforced on the server.

Three routes. Inside the platform, any user can report a message, a post or another user, which opens a case in the moderation queue. By email to the safeguarding and DPO contacts. And through an anonymous web form for anyone who does not want to be identified, including people outside the platform.

The report is triaged under the reports-handling procedure. Outcomes range from a warning to hiding content, blocking the account, or deleting it outright. Direct teacher-to-student contact across classrooms can result in account deletion.

Yes, through onboarding, the published policies, community reminders, regular teacher meetings and the AI Literacy and Responsible Use guide. Staff complete annual training on AI literacy, the Ethical Guidelines, safeguarding and reports handling.

The school's requirements govern. Teachers act within their own school's policy, and where a school needs something specific written down, we will sign it as part of the DPA or an addendum.

Yes, annually, against a standing template, and it feeds the safeguarding framework rather than sitting on its own.

Account and profile data for teachers and students, the content they create in projects, and operational data such as logins and platform usage. The full record of processing is documented in our ROPA.

Name, email address, password, school, country, timezone, language, and the professional profile they choose to fill in: role, subjects, interests, SDG focus, availability, biography and profile picture. Optionally a WhatsApp number with its own privacy setting.

Yes. A student registers their own account, but only with a teacher's referral code, so a student cannot join independently of a participating classroom.

Yes. An email address is required to create and verify a student account and to recover access.

No. No postal address, no phone number and no WhatsApp number for students. The WhatsApp field exists on teacher accounts only.

To determine the student's age, because the age decides whether parental consent is required and whether the student may use direct messaging at all. It is a data-protection control, not a profile field.

Where the student is below their country's digital age of consent, the account is flagged as requiring verified parental consent and the student cannot use the platform until it is recorded. Verification is performed by the teacher or the student's tutor.

Set out per processing activity in the Privacy Policy and the ROPA. In the standard school deployment the school is the controller for pupil data and Class2Class is the processor, under the DPA.

Yes. A teacher or student can delete their own account from Settings, and the request is honoured immediately rather than queued.

Yes, through the DPO. As controller, a school can request deletion or return of pupil data, and the DPA sets out what happens at the end of the engagement.

No. User data is never sold.

No. Partners receive aggregated, anonymised information only. See section 8.

No. Contractual no-training commitments are in place with the AI providers. See section 7.

Yes. A DPIA is maintained, alongside a GDPR Article 9 and Article 5(1)(f) compliance declaration.

The Data Protection Officer, at dpo@class2class.org. Teachers can also raise country-specific questions directly with the team or at the global teacher meetups.

Through a documented set of security invariants that every change is reviewed against, rather than a list of features. The core ones are: all protected data reaches the browser through a same-origin server layer, every protected operation fails closed unless the caller's identity, tenant, ownership and role are all established, and the database enforces the same tenant rules independently through row-level security.

Passwords are hashed with bcrypt by Supabase Auth in the EU. They are never stored in plain text.

Production database access runs through a restricted application role that cannot bypass row-level security. Administrative credentials, service-role keys and provider tokens are server-only and least-privileged, and cannot be reached from an ordinary user session.

Least privilege, with administrative capability separated from ordinary accounts. An ordinary session cannot reach administrative behaviour by altering claims, identifiers, headers or route parameters.

Under a written data breach response procedure, with error and exception monitoring in production feeding detection.

Yes, including notification obligations. Breach notification timelines are contractual commitments in the DPA rather than best-efforts.

Yes. A structured application security assessment programme ran in August 2026 across three rounds, and automated controls run on every change: secret scanning, static security analysis and dependency vulnerability monitoring, with a scheduled maintenance sweep.

Every sub-processor is recorded with its role, location, transfer mechanism and DPA, and is covered in Appendix C of our DPA. The list is reconciled against what the platform actually runs, most recently on 27 August 2026.

No, not yet. Our controls are mapped and continuously monitored against ISO 27001, and the certification audit is in progress. We do not claim the certificate until we hold it.

No, not yet. The SOC 2 attestation is in progress on the same basis.

The assessment summary, the DPA with Appendix C, the sub-processor list, the ROPA, the DPIA, the breach response procedure and the security review policy. We will also complete a school's own security questionnaire.

GDPR as the governing law, with controls mapped against ISO 27001 and SOC 2. Child protection follows COPPA-equivalent thresholds where they are stricter, and accessibility follows WCAG 2.1 Level AA. AI features are built against the EU AI Act.

Yes. Controls are mapped and continuously monitored, and the certification audit is in progress.

Yes, in progress.

Where a country sets a stricter threshold than the GDPR baseline, we apply the stricter one. The clearest example is the digital age of consent, which the platform resolves per country rather than using a single global figure.

Yes, reachable at dpo@class2class.org.

By treating age as an access control rather than a profile attribute. A student's age determines whether parental consent is required, using their own country's threshold, and whether they may use direct messaging at all. Both gates are enforced in the data layer and fail closed.

Through the safeguarding and governance framework, with an annual child safety risk assessment, an annual transparency report, and an external review scope for independent assessment.

Yes. Send it to the DPO. This Q&A is the source we answer from, so responses stay consistent between schools.

Yes, with zero tolerance for corruption in any form, published at /anti-corruption/.

Four, and they are worth stating explicitly because institutional reviewers look for them: deciding to participate and which classes take part; obtaining whatever local parental permissions the school's own policy requires, including for images of pupils; supervising pupils during classroom activity and live meetings; and applying the school's own safeguarding and acceptable-use policies to teacher and pupil conduct on the platform.

Yes, in the Project Creation Assistant, which helps teachers plan projects, and in a support chatbot available from the help menu. Both are assistive; neither makes decisions about students.

In teacher-facing project authoring: suggesting project titles and descriptions, generating activities and learning outcomes, suggesting SDGs, skills and child rights connections, classifying learning outcomes, and generating project cover images. Plus the support chatbot.

No. Contractual no-training commitments are in place with the model providers.

No. This is a contractual commitment with each provider, not a setting we rely on.

Claude Haiku from Anthropic as the default model for text features, with Google Gemini and OpenAI as fallbacks, all routed through the Vercel AI Gateway. Project cover images are generated with Google Gemini Flash Image.

No. No AI feature assesses, scores, ranks, profiles or makes any determination about a student. The AI helps a teacher plan a project.

No. Every AI output is a suggestion that the teacher must review and accept. Nothing an AI produces reaches students without a teacher's action.

Always. The teacher reviews, edits, approves and retains final educational authority over everything.

The teacher is the only route by which AI output reaches a classroom, and that is enforced by the authorisation model rather than by convention. Staff also complete annual AI literacy and ethical conduct training, and there is a written AI incident reporting procedure.

By designing the AI to assist planning rather than to author lessons. The teacher's pedagogical choices, framing and adaptation to their own class are the point of the tool, not something it replaces.

Through a documented Article 6(3) risk classification assessment covering each AI system in the inventory.

Yes. AI features are labelled in the product, the AI Literacy and Responsible Use guide is published for teachers, and teachers attest when accepting the Terms that they will read and apply it before using AI features with students.

No. Never, in any form.

No. Reporting is aggregated so that individual classrooms are not identifiable.

Participation figures, teacher reflections in aggregate, learning outcomes, project outcomes and classroom evidence in summary form, organised by country and SDG.

No. There is no mechanism for it, and it is prohibited.

Not through the platform. Any contact happens through Class2Class, and only where the teacher has agreed.

Partners may say they support Class2Class and may use the aggregated impact figures we provide. They receive no personal data, so there is nothing personal for them to market with, and they may not market to students.

The teacher. A teacher can download the impact report for their own project and cannot see another teacher's.