The curriculum change promoted by this government is at a decisive moment. Its eventual rejection would not only be an administrative setback, but also a worrying sign of our difficulty in understanding that technology is no longer an external tool, but a contemporary way of thinking that redefines how we learn, produce, and participate in society.

 

While in England the subject of computing is compulsory from the first grade, Uruguay has made computational thinking a state policy through the Ceibal Plan, and Finland teaches innovation through real interdisciplinary phenomena, in Chile we are still debating whether this is a priority. It is not a question of adding technological content, but of recognizing that mastery of digital language will be decisive for the country’s equity, productivity, and social cohesion.

 

The Ministry of Education led an unprecedented process, with more than 80 technical committees and hundreds of experts who agreed on the urgency of integrating computational thinking and innovation as a new form of literacy. However, the National Education Council has reviewed the proposal twice, and a third attempt is approaching. What is at stake is not a subject: it is the ability of the education system to anticipate the world to come.

 

The reformulation of Technology and Innovation could be a turning point. Today, in many schools, “technology” still equates to crafts or procedures, when it could be the space where students think with their hands and create with their minds. As Seymour Papert argued, technology is not used to consume knowledge, but to build it. Developing computational thinking is not programming, it is learning to structure, model, and solve with meaning.

 

Although the CNED has evaluated the proposal, it has noted difficulties in implementation. But Chile already has evidence: the IdeoDigital program trained more than 1,300 teachers in 250 public schools in 14 regions, many with limited technological resources, achieving improvements in learning, motivation, and teacher confidence. There are foundations, materials, and a network of teachers ready to move forward.

 

Approving this curriculum change is not a symbolic gesture. It is a strategic decision for the country’s development: a policy of digital equity, competitiveness, and citizenship. It means recognizing that education cannot follow technology, but rather guide it. That the future is not something to be waited for: it is something to be taught.

 

Mónica Retamal Fuentes and Vicente Lorca Pizarro