Notebooks, pencils… are instruments for students. Computers, however, are not understood in the same way. In addition, for many centres there is a single option: Chromebook. These are devices designed as a tool for teachers, schools and Google, but not for students. Chromebook means reducing complexity for faculty, increasing control for schools, reducing problems and costs, and increasing Google's chances of diversifying its business model. But parents have two responsibilities in the head: that we are obliged to transfer our children to the world of Google, and that the fact that our ways of learning and assimilating our children are in the hands of this private company can be risky.

In 2020, the Ofqual algorithm for the evaluation of secondary education in the United Kingdom reduced the prediction of some students' grades by 40% with respect to the evaluation of teachers. The students that most reduced were those from centers with few resources, since for the algorithm the center was a success variable and defined the trend towards a low rate of performance on students from centers with few resources. Fortunately, the algorithm was audited and rejected.

In the digital sphere, feeding on the data generated by the conduct of our students and lately I am thinking about the extent to which artificial intelligence and the algorithms of the platforms that we use in education can be an obstacle to the future of our political sons and daughters. These platforms can influence the results of the searches carried out by their daughter, conditioning their possibilities for the future. Math doctor Cathy O'Neil says in his book Weapons of Mass Destruction: "Without realizing it, we can promote exclusion if we don't look at it." I do not understand the chromebook as a tool for students, I understand it as a device in which children and young people are less likely to influence their future, compared to the computer.