That "someone" is starting to exist. It's called Learning Commons, and while it doesn't solve the whole problem, it moves an important piece of the puzzle.

Suscríbete ahora

The Problem No One Could See (Because It Was Behind the Screen)

Building an AI-powered educational app that actually teaches something isn't just about wiring a chatbot to a nice interface. Someone has to decide what a 3rd grader should know in math, what mistakes kids typically make at that stage of learning, which skills are prerequisites for which, and how to check that what the AI model generates actually matches all of that — not just that it sounds convincing.

Until now, every company that wanted to do this right had to rebuild that foundation from scratch: gather curriculum standards state by state or country by country, map learning progressions, build their own verification systems. A process the initiative itself describes as "slow, expensive, and error-prone" — out of reach for most small teams, or for schools that wanted to build their own tools without depending on an outside vendor.

A Database, Not Another Chatbot

Learning Commons is a nonprofit backed by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, launched in 2025 to build, in its own words, "AI infrastructure that better connects the way students learn to the tools they learn with." It's not an app for kids, and it's not another AI assistant — it's the invisible layer underneath, and it's free.

It has three main pieces:

• Knowledge Graph: an open, free dataset (published on GitHub) covering curriculum standards from all 50 U.S. states, learning progressions, common student mistakes at each stage, and definitions of cross-cutting skills like critical thinking.

• Evaluators: tools that measure whether AI-generated content is accurate, age-appropriate, evidence-based, and aligned with real curriculum standards — instead of just trusting that the model "knows."

• Agent Skills: a smaller set of tools designed to help teachers with lesson planning.

Since launch, its datasets have been downloaded more than 20,000 times, and more than 70 partners already use them or contribute data of their own — including OpenAI and Anthropic, alongside dozens of smaller edtech companies.

What Changes in a Real School

The theory is fine, but it's more interesting to see it in practice. In the Lisle 202 school district (Illinois), assistant superintendent Jason Markey used the beta version of the Knowledge Graph to build a formative math assessment app that mirrors the official state exam questions. Teacher Vincent Slowiak says the tool automatically flagged which prior standards each student needed to review before moving on — something he used to have to figure out by hand, digging through each kid's history.

Markey is honest about the limits: his team got "pretty close, pretty fast" to 97% of what they needed, but had to hire recent computer science graduates as interns to handle the less glamorous part — single sign-on, teacher dashboards — that no database, however good, solves on its own.

Other examples already underway: Really Great Reading, a literacy company, used the Knowledge Graph to build its reading outcomes system without having to pull data from half a dozen different sources — its own CEO estimates it saved them months of infrastructure work. And Eedi, an 11-year-old math research company, contributed its own data on why students get stuck on certain concepts — data that, according to its president George Mu, they'd been accumulating for years, but that "with the arrival of ChatGPT, suddenly became usable" at a much bigger scale.

Other tools already integrated include Canva Education, MagicSchool, TalkingPoints, and OKO Labs — names you might recognize if your kid's school already uses an AI tool for teachers.

What This Still Isn't

It's worth being honest about the limits here, so as not to swing into the opposite extreme of overhype: Learning Commons isn't a quality seal you'll see in the app store, or a certification a family can look for with a recognizable logo. It's infrastructure — something companies use (or don't) behind the scenes, voluntarily, and that doesn't yet translate into a visible label for someone just browsing for an app on their phone.

That means most of the apps you'll come across today won't tell you whether they're built on this foundation or not. But the fact that it exists changes one important thing: there's now a question worth asking, and a possible answer beyond "trust us."

What to Ask Before Trusting an AI Educational App

We already wrote a general checklist for choosing a good app (in Spanish) — age-appropriateness, ads, active participation, family values. All of that still applies. But when the app has AI built in, it's worth adding a few specific questions:

A. Does the company explain what curriculum standards it's based on? It doesn't have to name the Knowledge Graph specifically, but if there's no mention whatsoever of official curricula, educational frameworks, or being "aligned with state/national standards," that's a sign it might be improvising.

B. Does anyone check what the AI generates, or are they just trusting the model? Look for words like "verified," "reviewed by educators," or "evaluated" in the app description — and if you're unsure, ask customer support directly.

C. Do you recognize the company's name among known partners? MagicSchool, Canva Education, TalkingPoints, Really Great Reading, and OKO Labs already build on this foundation — it's not a closed list or an absolute guarantee, but it's a more concrete starting point than "seems trustworthy."

D. Ask the school directly. If your kid's school already uses some AI tool for teachers, ask if they know what it's based on. It's an increasingly reasonable question to ask, and increasingly likely that someone will know how to answer it.

E. Be wary of the empty promise. "Personalized learning with artificial intelligence," with no explanation of what that personalization is actually based on, remains, to this day, the most repeated and least verifiable phrase in the industry.

Suscríbete ahora

The Same Bridge, With the Blueprints Finally in View

Educational technology has always needed to be a bridge, not a wall — supporting a specific child's real learning, not replacing it with something that merely sounds smart. What changes with Learning Commons isn't that every AI app suddenly becomes good. It's that, for the first time, there's a shared, free foundation to build them well on — and a way to start telling apart which companies actually bothered to use it.

The next time an app promises "personalized learning with AI," the question no longer has to stop at "do I believe it?" It can simply be: personalized based on what?

Compartir

Almost all public debate about teenagers and technology talks about "kids" as if they were one uniform group, and about "screens" as if they did the same thing in every home. The most recent data says otherwise: the same device doesn't reach everyone equally, and inequality shows up in at least three layers. It's worth looking at them one at a time, with their nuances, because it's very easy to tell a simpler story than the numbers actually allow.

Suscríbete ahora

First layer: who spends more hours

In Spain, a recent report from the Gasol Foundation ("Screens, Childhood, and Adolescence in Spain," based on the PASOS study with children and teens aged 8 to 16) puts the average above three and a half hours a day, and calculates that 71.7% exceed the recommended maximum of two hours (Infobae, El Debate).

What matters for this article is how it's distributed. The highest values cluster in lower-income households and in families where the parents don't have a university education or aren't employed. According to the report, children of parents without a university education spend 46 more minutes a day in front of a screen. And the widest gap comes close to three hours: 304.6 minutes a day among teenage boys from lower-income families without a university education, versus 128.9 minutes among primary-school girls with university-educated parents.

One important nuance: those two extreme groups don't differ only in income — also in sex and age — and the report measures associations, not causes. But the direction is clear, and it's consistent with what's seen in other countries.

Second layer: who has a safety net

The second layer is subtler, and it's the one most often misread. The World Happiness Report 2026, from the University of Oxford, dedicates a chapter to social media and adolescence. Its most-cited analysis, led by Pablo Gracia (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) and his team, uses data from more than 331,000 teenagers across 43 countries (original chapter).

Its central finding is uncomfortable for everyone: problematic social media use — that compulsive pattern of thinking about it all the time, feeling bad without access, or lying about how much time is spent connected — is associated with worse well-being in all 43 countries, without exception. And that association grew stronger between 2018 and 2022 across every social group.

Where does inequality come in? In that the association is somewhat stronger in lower-socioeconomic-status families. But watch the proportions: the authors calculate that in higher-status families, the negative relationship is between 5% and 10% less intense. That's a real difference, not a chasm. And in the Mediterranean region, differences by socioeconomic status are weak. The researchers themselves raise, as a hypothesis, that better-resourced families are better positioned to mobilize support, digital parenting strategies, and digital skills that cushion the blow — and they caution that their study can't establish what causes what.

The practical translation: the problem isn't "something that happens to lower-resourced families." It's something that affects everyone, and that some families find a little harder to cushion.

Third layer: who has access, and who has guidance

The third layer is the oldest, and the one that seemed solved. In Spain, almost everyone is connected: according to the INE, 97.4% of households had a connection in 2025, and 96.9% of children aged 10 to 15 used a computer (INE). But the same survey finds that 10.7% of households connect by phone only — a detail that matters when it's time to do schoolwork or fill out a form.

In the United States, where this has been measured for longer, the pattern is sharper. According to Pew, 54% of adults in households earning under $30,000 have broadband at home, versus 94% of those earning $100,000 or more, and 34% of the former depend on a smartphone alone, versus 4% (Pew, 2026). It's the so-called "homework gap": back in 2018, 24% of teenagers from households earning under $30,000 said they sometimes or often couldn't finish homework because of unreliable access to a computer or connection, versus 9% of those from households earning $75,000 or more (Pew, 2018).

And with artificial intelligence, the gap is no longer just about access — it's about guidance. The OECD's PISA 2025 report, which we covered on Papitek (in Spanish), finds that students who don't use AI for schoolwork tend to come from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and that those same students are less likely to receive classroom instruction on how to evaluate what an AI generates. In other words: "not using it" isn't always a pedagogical choice — sometimes it's a lack of access. The OECD itself puts it this way: "simply expanding access to AI tools is unlikely to produce benefits without parallel investments in guidance on appropriate and effective use."

What inequality doesn't explain

It would be a mistake to turn all of this into a single explanation. The same PISA report contains a finding that upends any tidy narrative: according to its Director for Education, Andreas Schleicher, the biggest surprise was who fell behind the most — and it wasn't the most disadvantaged students, but those from well-off families. Income doesn't fully protect anyone, and the lack of it doesn't condemn anyone either.

Nor should this data be used to point fingers at anyone. The fact that children of parents without a university education spend more hours in front of screens doesn't speak to "worse parenting" — it speaks to less time, less margin, and fewer free, accessible alternatives to turn to. The honest conclusion isn't "some families are doing it wrong." It's "some families have been left fewer tools by the system."

What any family (and any school) can do

If the safety net is made up of family support, digital parenting strategies, and digital skills, a good part of that net can be built without spending money. A few ideas that follow from the evidence above:

• Conversation before control. Asking what they're watching, what they're playing, and who they're talking to doesn't depend on any app, and it's free. Doing it during moments that already exist — the walk to school, dinner — keeps it from sounding like an interrogation.

• One or two clear rules, not twenty. As the research team itself explained, better-resourced families are more likely to set rules and talk more with their kids (La Nación), but it doesn't take a rulebook: it's enough to agree on when and where the phone doesn't get used (the dinner table, bedtime) and stick to it.

• Watch the pattern, not just the hours. The indicator that matters in the Oxford study isn't time — it's problematic use: thinking about social media constantly, feeling bad without it, hiding how much it's used. Hours are a clue; those signs are the warning.

• Go slow with the youngest kids. The study finds that 11- and 12-year-olds are more vulnerable than older teens — one more reason not to rush.

• Ask the school for what home can't provide. Digital literacy training and critical thinking about AI, or device lending when there's only one phone at home. Making sure that training reaches everyone is a school decision, not an individual family's.

Suscríbete ahora

The same trapeze, a different net

A trapeze artist doesn't need less talent working with a net than without one — it's just that if they fall, the cost is different. Something similar happens with technology: the phone is the same trapeze for every teenager, but not everyone has the same net underneath. And that net can't be bought — it's woven out of time, conversation, and support, three things a society can choose to distribute more fairly.

If the debate over screens and teenagers stays stuck on how many hours or what age, it skips the question that matters most: what net does each kid have underneath them? And what can we do — at home and at school — to make sure they have one?

Compartir

When a child has dyslexia, ADHD, or struggles with math, the conversation about technology tends to fall into one of two extremes: either "screens on top of everything don't help," or the easy promise of an app that fixes it all. Neither is honest. What actually exists is a handful of concrete tools, many of them free, with real evidence behind them — tools that cure nothing, but that make the day-to-day a little less uphill.

Suscríbete ahora

First, a Word of Caution About Easy Promises

It's worth starting with an example of honesty, because it sets the tone for everything else. For years, OpenDyslexic — a typeface designed specifically for people with dyslexia, with heavier letter bases meant to "anchor" the eye — has been widely recommended. It sounds reasonable. The problem is the evidence doesn't back it up: a 2017 study with dyslexic children found they read more slowly and with more errors in OpenDyslexic than in standard fonts like Arial, and a later systematic review concluded there isn't enough evidence to recommend "dyslexia fonts" over any well-designed standard typeface.

This isn't a failure of technology — it's actually good news: it means you don't need to buy anything special or hunt for a miracle app. The tools that do have real evidence behind them tend to be far more boring than a magic typeface: reading text aloud, allowing more time, breaking a task into steps. The technology that works is the kind that makes those things easier, not the kind that promises to replace them.

Dyslexia: The Tool Is Already on the School Computer

Before looking for anything new, it's worth checking what's already installed. Immersive Reader comes built in, free, into Word, Edge, OneNote, Teams, and Forms — tools most schools already use. It reads text aloud while highlighting each word, lets you focus on one, three, or five lines at a time so you don't get lost on the page, breaks words into syllables, and includes a picture dictionary that shows an image when you click any word. It works in multiple languages, including Spanish.

For something built from the ground up for Spanish, there's Dytective, from the Spanish company Change Dyslexia (founded by researcher Luz Rello). It's not just a reading app: it runs early screening for dyslexia risk and offers more than 42,000 training activities across 24 cognitive skills related to literacy. The number that actually matters: in a study with 13,406 students across 107 schools in Madrid, using the tool was associated with a 40% reduction in the dyslexia risk coefficient within six months. It's free for Spanish schools through the "la Caixa" Foundation's EduCaixa program — more than 5,700 schools are already registered.

Writing: When the Problem Isn't Thinking, It's Putting It on Paper

For dysgraphia — when handwriting or organizing ideas in writing is far harder than thinking them — Read&Write (from Texthelp, available in Spanish and several other languages) adds text-to-speech and word prediction: as the child types, the tool suggests how to finish a word based on phonetic spelling, so they don't need to get every letter right for the word to appear. Co:Writer does something similar, focused specifically on that prediction. And for kids who prefer to keep writing by hand but need it converted to text, Livescribe smartpens digitize what's written on paper while recording the classroom audio in parallel.

Math: When the Problem Is the Format, Not the Concept

Dyscalculia has a particular quirk: sometimes a child understands the math concept perfectly well, but writing the operation in the correct format (fractions, exponents, lining up a long division) becomes a separate obstacle that has nothing to do with whether they can actually solve the problem. EquatIO lets you dictate, handwrite, or type an equation and automatically converts it into a properly formatted formula. ModMath does something similar but built for paper-based work: it turns basic math problems into a fully digital format, with no need to line up numbers by hand on a page.

ADHD: This Is Where Honesty Matters Most

This is the territory where the most caution is warranted. There are dozens of apps for ADHD — Pomodoro timers, task lists, distraction blockers — and the ones that work best are the ones built on cognitive-behavioral techniques already validated on their own (Pomodoro itself, offloading working memory to an external list, stimulus control), not on any magic unique to the app. General-purpose tools like Todoist for organizing tasks, or a color-coded calendar, cover a good part of that at no cost. ADHD-specific apps also exist, like Inflow, with evidence-based psychoeducational content — but unlike Dytective, its effectiveness hasn't yet been independently evaluated at scale, so it's worth treating as one more support, not something proven.

The honest bottom line is simple: no app replaces a professional evaluation, or family and school support. These tools make the day-to-day more manageable once that support already exists — they're not a shortcut around it.

Suscríbete ahora

Glasses, Not a Cure

No one expects glasses to cure nearsightedness. They simply let you see the blackboard, and that's enough to make everything else — following the lesson, doing homework, not feeling like the only one who can't keep up — a little more possible. That's exactly what this technology does well, and also what it can't do: it doesn't diagnose, it doesn't replace professional support, and it certainly isn't magic in the shape of a typeface.

With so many tools out there, the most useful move isn't trying them all at once — it's starting with what's already within reach and costs nothing:

A. Ask the school if Immersive Reader is already turned on on the devices your child uses — it comes free with Word, Edge, Teams, and OneNote, so there's a good chance it's already there, and no one has mentioned it at a parent-teacher meeting.

B. Check whether the school is registered with EduCaixa for free access to Dytective (Spain), especially if dyslexia is suspected and there's no formal evaluation yet — the tool itself includes an initial screening.

C. Pick one tool per specific difficulty, not a whole bundle at once: word prediction if the problem is writing, an equation editor if the problem is math formatting, a timer if the problem is sustaining attention.

D. Talk to teachers before installing anything, not after — many schools already have protocols or licenses for these tools, and this avoids technology at home pulling in a different direction from technology at school.

None of these four things costs money. The question worth asking isn't "which app fixes this?" — it's this one: does your child already have the glasses that exist, or are they still trying to read the blackboard from the back of the room?

Compartir

Six months later, a group of researchers measured what had happened in each classroom. The results leave little room for ambiguity — and explain, better than almost anything else we've written about AI and learning, why the debate shouldn't be "should we use AI in class, yes or no?" but "who is configuring that AI, and how?"

Suscríbete ahora

The Same Model, Two Opposite Results

The study is real: nearly 1,000 high school students in Turkey, during the 2023-24 school year, split into three groups — one with no AI access (control), one with GPT Base (a standard ChatGPT that answers with the direct solution), and one with GPT Tutor (the same model, instructed to guide without revealing the answer) (Wharton/Sungu, via Tech & Learning).

On practice exercises, both AI groups improved massively over the control group: 48% better with GPT Base, 127% better with GPT Tutor. So far, AI looks like an outright success.

But the final exam, taken without any help, tells a different story. The GPT Base group — the one that got direct answers — scored 17% worse than the control group: all that practice-exercise improvement evaporated, and left students worse prepared than if they'd never touched the AI at all. The GPT Tutor group, by contrast, ended up equal to the control — neither better nor worse.

Alp Sungu, a Wharton professor and co-author of the study, puts it bluntly: "students potentially use it as an answer machine, rather than as a tool that facilitates learning." And he adds something worth underlining, because it dismantles easy optimism: "I thought GPT Tutor was going to beat the control group. That wasn't the case." Not even the well-designed version outperformed skipping AI altogether — it simply avoided the harm the poorly-designed version caused.

The Difference Is in the Design, Not the Model

If that finding sounds like "AI with hints doesn't help much," another study — this one from Harvard and MIT, with 186 university physics students — qualifies the conclusion in an important way (via Edutopia).

The AI tutor in this study followed two very specific rules, written literally into its instructions: give only one step at a time, never the full solution at once; and it could confirm whether an answer was correct, but never reveal it before the student attempted it. With just those two rules — nothing more — students who used the AI tutor achieved a learning gain more than double that of students who attended an active lecture, while also finishing the material 10 minutes faster and reporting higher motivation.

The researchers' explanation connects to something pedagogy has known for decades: the reason a one-on-one human tutor usually outperforms a lecture hall is personalized, immediate feedback. A well-designed AI tutor can replicate that part of the mechanism — but, as the Turkish study shows, replicating it badly is worse than not having it at all.

It's the same conclusion, in different words, reached by the OECD's PISA 2025 report, which we already covered on Papitek: the OECD itself sums up the philosophy as AI needing to be scaffolding, not a crutch — something that supports the student's reasoning, not something that replaces it. Two university studies and a report with data from 91 countries, all pointing to exactly the same place.

So Who's Configuring This in the Classroom?

This is where the optimism runs into reality. If the difference between "help" and "crutch" lies in how AI is configured and introduced into a specific task, the logical question is: who is actually doing that design work at your kid's school?

According to a recent Bellwether report, as of late 2024 only about half of U.S. school districts had provided any kind of training to their teaching staff on generative AI (Bellwether, "Productive Struggle"). The other half, in practice, left each teacher to figure it out alone. The report itself doesn't sugarcoat it: "the gap between what students are doing right now and what schools are prepared to address is widening," and adds a line that should unsettle any education system still sitting on its hands: "students can't wait for a district's AI policy and teacher training to slowly catch up."

This isn't a knock on teachers — it's almost the opposite. A teacher with no specific training on how to configure or choose an AI tool has no way of knowing, unless someone explains it, that the difference between "answers directly" and "gives a hint" can be the difference between helping a student and harming them. The report calls for, among other things, redesigning tasks so students have to show their thinking process, not just the final result — exactly the principle that separated GPT Tutor from GPT Base in the Turkish study.

What You Can Do Now, Without Waiting for School

While teacher training catches up — and the Bellwether report itself admits that will take a while — there's real room for a family to apply the same principle at home, with whatever AI tool they're already using:

• Ask for explanations, not answers. Before accepting what the AI gives you, ask it "why?" or "walk me through the reasoning step by step" instead of copying the result directly.

• Verify before using. Treating an AI's answer as a first draft that needs checking, not as a settled fact, is the habit that shows up most consistently in the studies that do show real learning.

• Ask school if there's a clear policy — not just which tools are allowed, but how they're configured. "Does it give direct answers or guide with hints?" is a perfectly reasonable question for a parent-teacher meeting.

• Don't confuse "uses a lot of AI" with "is learning a lot." The Turkish study makes it clear: students with GPT Base felt like they were doing better (they improved in practice) and ended up worse prepared. The feeling of progress doesn't always match real progress.

Suscríbete ahora

A Well-Built Scaffold Goes Unnoticed

You don't notice a good scaffold from the street once the building is finished — you only notice it if it was badly built, because then the building leans. Something similar happens with AI in learning: when it's well designed, you barely notice it was there, because the student is still the one doing the thinking. When it's badly designed, the result also takes a while to show — until the unassisted exam arrives.

The technology to do this well already exists, and so do the studies that prove it. What's missing, based on everything we've reviewed here, isn't more AI or less AI — it's more people trained to build the scaffold properly before handing it to students. Do you already know what kind of scaffold your kid is using this week?

Compartir

It isn't. And it's worth pausing to read the data calmly before signing on to the headline.

An Imperfect Framework, But the Only One We Have

Let's start with the obvious: PISA is not a perfect instrument. It reduces entire education systems — their culture, funding, history, regional inequality — to three numbers per subject, from a two-hour test given to a sample of 15-year-olds. A system can have real strengths PISA doesn't measure (creativity, social cohesion, wellbeing) and weaknesses it overstates. No serious expert treats PISA as the final word on a country's education.

That said, it's also the most rigorous, systematic international comparison that exists: close to 760,000 students across 91 countries and economies, using the same methodology for more than two decades. Rejecting the framework outright because it's imperfect would be just as unrigorous as accepting it uncritically. If we accept its rules of the game — the same rules the entire public debate of the past few days has already accepted — some conclusions do hold up against the data. Let's get to them.

The Usual Suspect

We've written about this pattern before at Papitek. When we asked whether banning social media for minors was actually a good idea, or when we reviewed the silenced debate over screens in the classroom, we reached the same conclusion: in Spain there's a dominant strand of opinion, with plenty of media amplification, that turns technology into the favorite scapegoat for any educational problem. It's a comfortable explanation — an external, visible enemy, one we were already uneasy about for other reasons (mental health, addiction, social media) — instead of more uncomfortable explanations that would require looking inward.

And here's the trap: the report doesn't have to say "screens are the cause" for the headline to say it for them. We reviewed several Spanish outlets published today, and the pattern repeats: the headline oversimplifies far more than the body of the article does. elDiario.es itself quotes a senior OECD analyst, Tue Halgreen, in far more cautious language than its own headline — "there are a lot of items pointing in that direction" — nowhere near a demonstrated cause. Spain's Secretary of State for Education, quoted in the same piece, says the poor results "may possibly be driven" by rising screen use — a hypothesis, not a verdict. And according to Cronista.com, Spain's education unions (CCOO, UGT, CSIF, STEs-i, ANPE) point to teacher shortages, high student-teacher ratios, absenteeism and constant legislative changes as factors just as relevant as technology — which shows up as one factor among several, not the cause.

What the Numbers Actually Say

Let's get to the data, because it's stark and worth keeping in view amid all the debate.

Spain scored 451 points in reading, 457 in mathematics and 477 in science — its worst-ever result in all three subjects since the series began. It sits below both the OECD average (461 / 463 / 482) and the EU average (459 / 463 / 481) in all three. The drop in reading between 2022 and 2025 is 23 points — and 45 points since 2015. That's also larger than the EU's average decline over the same recent period (roughly 16 points).

That said, Spain's exceptionalism shouldn't be overstated: looking at the full results table, Spain is nowhere near the country that fell the most. Latvia lost 45 points in reading between 2022 and 2025 alone, Denmark 29, Malta 31. Spain belongs to a broad group of countries with steep declines, well above the OECD average (−14) — but it isn't a unique case, and treating it as one distorts the diagnosis.

This isn't a uniquely Spanish phenomenon: the OECD average has fallen 28 points in reading since 2015, its lowest level ever recorded in PISA's history, with one in five 15-year-olds now classified as a low performer across all three subjects at once. But it isn't an inevitable fate either: Türkiye improved more than any other OECD country this cycle, rising in all three subjects since 2022. Widespread decline isn't a climate-scale fatality — some countries are doing something different, and it's working.

It's How, Not How Much

This is the heart of the article — and also where the dominant narrative falls apart.

The report itself avoids talking about causation, and this no longer needs to be inferred from press coverage — it's in the text itself. In the preface signed by OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann: "In reading, increased digitalisation, longer screen time and falling rates of reading for enjoyment have coincided with weaker literacy outcomes." Coincided — a temporal overlap, not a demonstrated cause. On the relationship with performance, the same preface adds: "Digital and AI tools are increasingly embedded in students' learning, but their relationship with performance depends on how they are used. Across OECD countries, moderate use of digital devices for learning is associated with stronger science performance, while excessive use and digital distraction are associated with weaker outcomes."

What the report does draw a clear line on is quantity versus type of use. And there's a finding that directly undercuts the most popular solution in the Spanish debate — banning phones in the classroom. According to PISA 2025's own data, changes in cell phone bans between 2022 and 2025 are not associated, at the system level, with changes in science or reading performance. If anything, countries with more schools banning phones tend to have lower, not higher, average science performance. The report itself rushes to add an important qualifier, worth quoting in full so it isn't misread: "The PISA data do not allow for causal inference and therefore do not necessarily indicate that the bans themselves lead to lower performance. Rather, the findings may suggest that systems with lower performance are more likely to have introduced such bans as mitigation measures." In other words: it's probably not that banning phones makes results worse — it's that systems that were already struggling are the ones banning the most, as a reaction. But if banning were the fix that so much of the public debate promises, we'd expect to see improvement where bans are most common. We don't.

The country comparison backs this up. Japan has one of the lowest shares of schools banning phones (22%, versus a 49% OECD average) and, despite that — or precisely because of how it manages use, not because it bans it —, it's among the OECD countries with the lowest use of devices during class time, with only 5% of students reporting frequent distraction. It has near-universal 1:1 device infrastructure (the GIGA School program) and still keeps in-class use tightly scoped and directed. South Korea, at 23% ban prevalence, remains among the best in the world despite losing 15 points in reading. Singapore uses more device time for learning than the OECD average (2.1h versus 1.7h) and is among the top two education systems on the planet. And Estonia reports more digital distraction than the OECD average — and yet that distraction isn't significantly associated with worse science performance there, and the country remains among the OECD's top three in all three subjects.

Andreas Schleicher, the OECD's Director for Education and Skills, sums it up with a very concrete example, right in the report itself: "In Singapore, despite its high-tech classrooms, students still spend substantial time with print texts, and reading remains a centrepiece of early education." That's not a contradiction — it's proof that technology and reading can coexist when a system decides, with judgment, what each one is for.

That these countries post strong results without restricting technology, and that Spain posts poor results without being an especially hyper-digitalized classroom environment by comparison, should be enough to dismantle the "more technology equals worse reading" equation. The real pattern is different: it's how it's used that matters, not whether it's used.

This repeats, with some nuance, for artificial intelligence — the biggest new addition to this PISA cycle, which for the first time asks students about their use of generative chatbots. Spain sits, according to various accounts of the report, above the OECD average in weekly use. And yes, there's a real gap: students who don't use AI for specific schoolwork tasks (summarizing, research) tend to score better in science than those who do. But the relationship isn't as simple as "more use, worse score": for general-purpose AI use as a learning aid, the report itself finds that weekly users perform similarly to non-users — it's daily use and very occasional use, the two extremes, that score worse. And among students who receive classroom training to critically evaluate what AI produces, performance improves relative to those who don't get that training. The OECD sums it up with a sharp image: technology should be scaffolding, not a crutch — something that supports a student's own thinking, not a substitute for it.

The Self-Criticism We're Missing

If the problem isn't simply "how much technology there is," then the problem lies, in large part, in how it's being integrated — and that's exactly where real self-criticism from the education community is missing, instead of pointing outward.

No one should downplay teacher shortages, high ratios or absenteeism — they're real factors, and the unions themselves rightly put them front and center. But that explanation shouldn't be allowed to cover for a more uncomfortable one: the data itself points to a pedagogical knowledge gap in how to use educational technology effectively. The performance difference between students who receive training to think critically about AI and those who don't isn't a hardware problem — it's a methodology problem, about knowing how to teach the effective use of a tool that's already in every classroom, whether we like it or not. And the finding that "hasty readers" (students who answer quickly but incorrectly) rose 5 percentage points since 2018 — from almost 7% to 11% — points to something that isn't fixed by taking away the phone either: how attentive reading is taught in an information-saturated environment.

The report itself devotes an entire section to explaining why reading has declined, and that's where the self-criticism becomes unavoidable. It identifies four forces, not one — students (less persistence, more rushed answers), schools and classrooms, the education system as a whole, and broader societal trends (where technology enters, last on the list, not first). On schools, there's a data point that should sting more than it currently does in the Spanish debate: according to the TALIS 2024 teacher survey, the share of class time spent maintaining order — not teaching — rose from 13% in 2018 to 16% in 2024. And the report itself is a reminder worth keeping in mind for Spain: spending more doesn't guarantee anything on its own. Luxembourg is, by far, the biggest per-student spender in the entire OECD — and posts lower science scores than Ireland, France or Italy, all of which invest less than half as much. Money matters, but it doesn't substitute for judgment.

None of these four factors is an argument against technology. They're arguments about methodology — about whether an education system knows how to manage a classroom, train its teachers, and use its own data to improve. And they're the ones getting the least space in the headlines.

Stripping technology out of the classroom, as much of the dominant narrative proposes, isn't free: it would mean giving up what actually works when used well — and judging by Japan, Korea, Singapore or Estonia, it's entirely possible to use it well without results suffering. Spain's problem doesn't seem to be that there's too much technology in its classrooms. It seems to be that there's too little judgment about how to use it — and that's a teacher-training and methodology problem, not a hardware one.

Main sources: "PISA 2025 Results (Volume I)," OECD 2026 — full official text, verified directly against the report's PDF (preface, foreword, executive summary, results table and the digital resources/AI chapter), not just press coverage. Supplemented by coverage from El Español, elDiario.es, Infobae España and Cronista.com. All direct quotations from the OECD report above are given in their original English, taken from the primary source text — not translated back from a Spanish rendering. A small number of figures (exact phone-ban percentages by country; Spain's exact weekly AI-use rate) still rely on secondary press coverage, as they live in report charts not extractable as plain text — see research/pisa-2025-informe-lectura-espana.md for the full sourcing detail.

This news has been read in two opposite directions. For some, it proves that banning is a mistake. For others, it's a procedural stumble that changes nothing. At Papitek, we don't buy either reading.

We do believe minors' access to social media needs to be regulated — particularly on Instagram and TikTok, the two platforms where most of the evidence on addictive design and harm to adolescent mental health is concentrated. What France just proved isn't that regulation is wrong — it's that there's a way to do it that doesn't survive two months in court. And Spain, which has its own law working its way through parliament, still has time not to repeat those mistakes.

Yes to regulation, no to looking the other way

Let's be clear from the start: the "let's wait and see" premise doesn't convince us. The design of these platforms — infinite scroll, variable notifications, algorithmic amplification of whatever hooks people most — isn't an accidental side effect, it's the foundation of their business model. A teenager isn't competing on equal footing against a product designed by entire teams of engineers to maximize time spent. That's exactly where someone needs to draw a line, because a family alone can't offset that imbalance of power.

That said, the interesting question has never been "regulate or not?" but what exactly gets regulated.

The problem isn't the minor, it's the design

The solution that actually attacks the root of the problem isn't deciding at what age a minor can join Instagram — it's forcing Instagram and TikTok to stop using the techniques that make it hard for anyone, not just a teenager, to put the phone down. Redesigning infinite scroll, limiting algorithmic amplification of content engineered to create dependency, eliminating variable-reward mechanics lifted straight from a slot machine: that would solve the problem at the source, for every age, without needing to pick an arbitrary age cutoff.

Interestingly, Spain's own bill points in that direction: it requires platforms to demonstrate to the CNMC (Spain's National Commission for Markets and Competition) that they don't use addictive designs and that they protect privacy before they can operate with minors in Spain. That's the good part of the idea. The problem is that, for now, that redesign depends on platforms wanting to do it, or on a regulator managing to prove it case by case — a slow process for a generation growing up with these apps right now, not five years from now.

In the meantime, patches don't cut it

And here's the nuance that matters most to us: the situation doesn't allow for half-measures. A penalty regime that fines a platform once the harm is proven — months or years after it happened — protects no one at the moment it matters. For a company with Meta's or ByteDance's revenue, a fine is an operating cost, not a real incentive to change the product. While the case is being litigated, regulated, and the violation proven, entire generations of teenagers stay exposed to the same design.

That's why an access restriction — imperfect, yes — makes sense as a bridge measure while the real redesign is forced through: it's the only thing that can be deployed now, not three years of paperwork from now. But precisely because it's an emergency measure, it can't afford to be badly designed. And that's exactly where France stumbled.

If you're going to restrict, do it without trampling basic rights

France's Constitutional Council didn't say "banning is wrong." What it said, in essence, is that this specific ban trampled basic rights in three ways:

1. Disproportion. A total cutoff, with no gradation or exceptions, restricting a minor's freedom of expression and communication.

2. Overreach. The law covered any social network, including platforms whose actual risk wasn't even proven.

3. Insufficient privacy in age verification. The mechanisms planned to check age offered no clear guarantees about what happened afterward to that sensitive data about the minor.

That third point, for us, weighs the most. If urgency forces us to legislate quickly with an access restriction, a minor's privacy can't be the variable sacrificed for speed. Verifying a teenager's age can't mean building a database with their ID document stored on some social network's server. That's not protecting the minor — it's trading one risk for another.

The mistakes Spain can still avoid

Spain's law, as currently drafted, shares at least two of the three French stumbles. It applies to "any social network" without distinguishing where there's real evidence of harm — the same overreach mistake. And it still doesn't specify any concrete age-verification mechanism — it defers that to a future regulation — which is exactly the piece that sank the French law on privacy grounds.

It does improve on France in one respect: for the 13-to-16 bracket, access requires both CNMC authorization and explicit parental consent — a margin for family decision-making that France never allowed for anyone. But that margin disappears for minors under 13, where the design reverts to the same exceptionless cutoff a court has already struck down in another country.

If Spain wants its law to actually work as an emergency bridge — and not as a patch a court rewrites within a year — it needs to resolve now, not in some future regulation, how to verify age without compromising sensitive data; grade the restriction by actual evidence of harm, not by blanket category; and demand, with the same insistence it demands the access restriction, the timeline and metrics for the platform redesign that's supposed to be the real end goal.

Banning without redesigning just postpones the problem. Redesigning without protecting, in the meantime, the people already inside is leaving them defenseless until that day comes. Spain doesn't have to get both calls wrong.

Welcome to BookTok, the corner of TikTok dedicated to talking about books — fifteen-second reviews, tears on camera, bookshelves organized by trilogy and spine color. It's been one of the most talked-about — and least understood by parents — cultural phenomena in teen entertainment for several years now.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

It's understandable if this slipped past you: you grew up with the summer reading list and, at best, the staff picks shelf at the local bookstore. Nobody warned you that book discovery could happen in exactly the same place your kid watches dances, recipes, and memes.

The phenomenon no teacher pulled off alone

The numbers aren't staff-room gossip. A survey by the UK's Publishers Association of more than 2,000 young people aged 16 to 25 found that 59% say BookTok or book influencers helped them discover a passion for reading they didn't have before, and 68% say BookTok got them to read something they never would have considered on their own. Almost half, 49%, went to a physical bookstore to buy a book they first saw in a video (Publishers Association, via Australia Reads).

The hashtag #BookTok had already racked up 107 billion views by 2023, and its effect on sales is tangible well beyond the screen: Australian chain Dymocks has had as many as eight of its ten best-selling books in a given week be titles trending on TikTok. In Spain, the phenomenon has its own faces — creators like Alba Zamora Expósito (198,000 followers, more than 11 million likes) or Victoria Resco (1.4 million followers, who published her first novel at just sixteen) move sales figures no cultural supplement review moves today.

This isn't a two-week fad: it's proof that teenagers do read when book discovery reaches them through the exact same channel as everything else in their lives.

Why is this working where school has been trying for years?

It's not magic, it's design. A BookTok video doesn't sell a book's synopsis — it sells one specific emotion in fifteen seconds: a character's betrayal, the twist nobody saw coming, the very real tears of the person filming. That taps into something every language teacher knows but can rarely replicate in a classroom: at fifteen, what makes you want to read isn't "this will make you a better person," it's "this wrecked me and I need it to wreck you too."

Then there's the community side: 19% of those surveyed by the Publishers Association say they found community by following the hashtag, and 16% made new friends through it. Reading stops being the usual solitary act and becomes a conversation — about which character "is yours," which trilogy "is going to destroy you," which collector's edition you need to track down.

The other side of the hashtag

This is where it's worth pumping the brakes — not to kill the enthusiasm, but to look at it with a bit more judgment.

First: a good chunk of what goes viral on BookTok isn't an organic discovery by some random reader. Entire publishing houses have redirected their marketing strategy toward TikTok, and the genre that's benefited the most — "romantasy" (romantic fantasy) — now lives under a production pressure that recent academic research is starting to document as literary homogenization: the same tropes ("enemies to lovers," "fake dating") repeating book after book because the algorithm rewards what has already worked, not what's different. A study published in the journal Social Network Analysis and Mining describes it bluntly as "mass-produced romance" — the same mechanism, incidentally, that drives any TikTok trend (a dance, a video format) to be replicated into the ground.

Second — and this is what actually matters to a family: a lot of that viral romantasy is written and classified as adult literature — explicit scenes included — but is marketed with an aesthetic (pastel covers, "teen" language in the video, very young authors on camera) that draws in an audience visibly younger than the book was ever intended for. Some critics point directly to sagas like Sarah J. Maas's — hugely popular among Spanish teenagers too — as an example of that gap between how a book is sold and who it's actually written for, including relationship dynamics (jealousy, control, isolation) presented without a shred of critical distance.

This isn't about banning romantasy or assuming everything that goes viral is a problem — there's a huge amount of BookTok recommending perfectly age-appropriate YA fiction. The problem isn't the genre, it's not knowing what's actually inside the cover your kid picked.

Age matters here:

🟢 Ages 11-13: generally fantasy and adventure without further complication — the risk here is the algorithm nudging them toward adult romantasy simply because it's everywhere, not because it fits their age.

🟡 Ages 14-16: more autonomy to choose, but it's worth knowing which specific titles are circulating — not everything that looks "for teens" on the cover is teen content underneath.

🔴 Ages 17+: enough judgment of their own to decide, though it's still useful to talk about what they're reading, exactly the way you'd talk about a show or a movie.

How to be part of it without killing the spark

The last thing this story needs is to become one more screen you have to police. The most useful reaction isn't suspicion — it's genuine curiosity:

• Ask which specific video made her buy that book — it's a much richer conversation than "what are you reading?", and she'll usually answer you eagerly.

• If a title is unfamiliar, spend two minutes looking up what it's about before drawing conclusions from the cover — plenty of books that look "YA" on the outside are repackaged adult fiction underneath.

• Turn a BookTok recommendation into a shared plan: the bookstore or the library, not as control, but as an excuse to be close to something they genuinely care about.

• If something in a book worries you, bring it up the way you'd bring up any other piece of culture they're consuming — without dramatizing it, but without pretending you haven't seen it either.

• Treat "check what it's actually about before you weigh in" as a general family habit, not a special protocol reserved for books — the same one you already apply (or should) to a show, a video game, or an account they follow.

Technology shouldn't be a wall between you and what your kids are reading — it should be a bridge that gets you to the last page with them. BookTok has pulled off something we'd all been hoping for: millions of teenagers picking up books again, on their own terms. Are we really going to ruin that by asking what exactly they're reading?

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Sources

• The BookTok generation: how social media is transforming Gen Z reading habits — Publishers Association (UK)

• BookTok: transforming Gen Z reading habits — Australia Reads

In previous articles we've talked about handing over that first smartphone —an age that keeps creeping closer to First Communion— and about how kids' digital identity has shifted onto platforms where the line between private and public blurs. For a preteen between 10 and 13, joining the class group is the modern equivalent of going to the park alone for the first time. It's a social rite of passage full of excitement, but also a chaotic environment they're rarely prepared for.

The school day no longer ends at five in the afternoon. Now it stretches into bedrooms through an unbroken stream of messages, stickers, and voice notes. As parents, we can't just hand over the device and expect them to know how to handle it. It's time to treat the class WhatsApp group not as a threat, but as their first hands-on training for digital life.

1. The Anatomy of the Class Group: Why So Many Problems?

To understand what's going on in a preteen's mind inside WhatsApp, we first need to look at the dynamics these group chats create:

• The "boiling phone" syndrome: a group of 30 classmates can easily generate 500 messages in one afternoon. Looping memes, emoji chains, and crossed questions about homework create an overstimulation that wrecks their ability to concentrate and breeds anxiety if they feel like they're "missing out."

• The missing tone of voice: at this age, emotional development hasn't yet mastered irony, sarcasm, or context in written language. An innocent joke on the playground turns, in text, into grounds for a full-blown fight.

• Exclusion dynamics, or "the freezer": cyberbullying on WhatsApp doesn't always show up as direct insults. It often takes the form of micro-exclusions: creating parallel groups to leave two or three classmates out, systematically ignoring someone's messages, or removing members from the group as a form of social punishment.

2. The "Netiquette" Rulebook: Ground Rules for Your Child

Before they even open the app, it's worth sitting down with them to set some clear ground rules. You can go over these four basics at home:

1. The mirror rule: "If you wouldn't say it out loud in front of the whole class and the teacher in the playground, don't write it in the chat." The screen gives a false sense of courage we need to dismantle from day one.

2. Respect the shared space: the class group is for things that concern everyone (exam dates, group projects, general announcements). If they want to talk to a friend about a video game or make weekend plans, that belongs in a one-on-one chat.

3. Zero screenshots: teach them that forwarding private conversations or taking screenshots to mock someone breaks the group's trust and violates someone else's privacy.

4. The emotional handbrake: if a message in the group upsets or angers them, the rule is non-negotiable: put the phone down and breathe. Written words don't disappear from the reader's memory, and responding in the heat of the moment always makes things worse.

3. Essential Technical Settings: A Step-by-Step Setup

As I like to point out from my more technical side, technology also gives us tools to protect ourselves from its own addictive, invasive design. Grab your child's phone and go through these three settings together:

A. Controlling who can add them to groups

By default, anyone who has your child's number can add them to a group. To stop them from being pulled into unknown chats without their consent:

• Go to Settings > Privacy > Groups.

• Change the setting from "Everyone" to "My Contacts" (or "My Contacts Except...").

B. Turning off automatic media downloads

This keeps the phone's storage from filling up with junk memes and, more importantly, stops inappropriate videos or images from landing straight in your child's photo gallery without them choosing to save it:

• Go to Settings > Storage and Data.

• Under "Media auto-download," turn off downloads for photos, audio, video, and documents over both mobile data and Wi-Fi.

C. Muting notifications by default

The phone shouldn't buzz every time a classmate sends an emoji to the group:

• Open the class group, tap the group name, and select Mute Notifications.

• Choose "Always" and uncheck "Show Notifications." This way, your child checks the group when it's the right time for them — not whenever the app demands their attention.

4. The Family's Role: Accompanying, Not Policing

Legislative debate and regulation around minors' technology use are very much the order of the day, but the ultimate responsibility for raising kids well in the digital world still rests in our hands as families.

To build a healthy relationship with WhatsApp at home, our role needs to rest on three pillars:

• Being a safe harbor: if your child witnesses bullying or receives inappropriate content in the group, they need to know they can come to you without fearing the "punishment" will be having their phone taken away. If the punishment for every digital problem is isolation, they'll stop telling us what's going on.

• Physical boundaries at home: set clear rules, like leaving phones charging outside bedrooms overnight. Sleep is sacred and shouldn't have to compete with class-chat activity.

• Leading by example: it's no use lecturing about respect in group chats if our kids see us glued to our phones at the table, or heatedly arguing in the "parents' class group." Our own digital behavior is their number one role model.

Conclusion: A Bridge Toward Digital Maturity

The class WhatsApp group doesn't have to be an endless source of conflict. Handled well, it's the perfect opportunity for our kids to learn values that matter for their future: digital empathy, time management, privacy, and respect for others.

Technology shouldn't be a wall that separates us from them, but a bridge to walk alongside them as they grow. Take a look at their screen, talk to them about what's happening in the chat, and teach them that being connected demands, above all, learning to be a good person on the other side of the keyboard too.

As parents, we often feel lost searching for content that isn’t “digital trash” (full of ads, addictive algorithms, or unmonitored chats). That is why today I want to talk to you about a corner of the internet that is, quite simply, an educational gem: Google Experiments.

Suscríbete ahora

This isn’t a typical gaming platform. It is a showcase of experimental projects that use code, music, and artificial intelligence to show what is “under the hood” of technology. It’s a place where programming feels less like a math class and more like a magic trick they can control themselves.

Here is my selection of the most powerful experiments to explore as a family, organized by what your children can learn:

1. Demystifying Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Instead of seeing AI as something abstract or “magical,” these experiments teach them that machines learn because we train them. This is pure computational thinking.

• Teachable Machine: The star experiment. It allows a child to use their webcam to teach the computer to recognize objects or gestures. Want the computer to clap when it detects you’re wearing glasses? You can do it here.

• Quick, Draw!: A “Pictionary” game against a neural network. Kids draw, and the AI tries to guess what it is. It’s perfect for discussing how machines classify information and learning that, sometimes, they also make mistakes.

• Say What You See: A description challenge. They must write what they see in an image so the AI can try to replicate it. A brilliant way to train precision in language and understand the “art of the prompt.”

• Semantris: A word association game where the AI scores based on semantic relationships. Ideal for expanding vocabulary and understanding how machines connect logical concepts.

2. Art and Music: Where Code Becomes a Canvas

For those who think technology is “cold,” these experiments prove it is the ultimate creative tool.

• Chrome Music Lab: A collection of visual tools to explore sound. From turning drawings into music to seeing how a sound wave vibrates. It is visual, intuitive, and fascinating music.

• Blob Opera: Four “blobs” that sing opera in real-time. By moving them, they change pitch and harmony. It’s a lesson in vocal technique and musical harmony disguised as a fun game.

• Shared Piano: A collaborative virtual piano. You can send the link to a friend and play together in real-time from different homes. Technology as a bridge, not a wall.

• Land Lines: Draw a line or scribble, and the experiment will search for satellite images from across the planet (rivers, coastlines, roads) that match your stroke. A beautiful connection between art and real geography.

3. Science, Empathy, and the Real World

Experiments that use technology to expand our vision of the world and others.

• Creatability: Creative tools designed for people with disabilities. It teaches children how technology can be inclusive (for example, drawing with the movement of your nose).

• The Hidden Worlds of the National Parks: An immersive journey through incredible ecosystems. You can fly over volcanoes or dive in reefs while experts explain the science behind what you see.

• Shadow Art: Combines the physical play of shadow puppets with image recognition. You have to place your hands in front of the camera to form animals, and the AI helps you perfect the pose.

• Google Arts & Culture: The infinite museum. It allows everything from seeing paintings in ultra-high definition to projecting artworks into your living room using augmented reality.

Why do we love this at Papitek?

As you’ve seen in other articles, we are concerned about the impact of social media and empty consumption. Google Experiments is the antidote for three reasons:

1. No ads or “hooks”: There are no algorithms trying to keep you there for three hours. The goal is for you to try something, learn, and leave with a new idea.

2. Open Source: Many projects show how they were made. They encourage that curiosity to “open the lid” of the machine.

3. Active Participation: Here you don’t just watch; you touch, you train, and you create.

One final piece of advice: Don’t leave them alone with these experiments. Sit with them. Try to “trick” the Quick, Draw! AI or compose a crazy melody in the Music Lab. When we get involved, we show them that the internet isn’t just a place to watch, but a giant laboratory for experimentation.

Suscríbete ahora

Suscríbete ahora

The magic of an LMS lies in its ability to manage chaos. For a teacher, it is the control tower from which they organize lessons, grade, and track each student’s progress in real-time. For us, as parents, understanding how they work is key to helping our children develop autonomy. It is not just a file repository; it is a management center where the student learns to organize their time, prioritize tasks, and interact in a controlled professional environment long before facing the working world.

I am often asked if studying through an LMS is the same as a traditional face-to-face class. The answer is a resounding no, and that is where its value lies. While face-to-face classes are based on synchronicity and direct contact, studying via an LMS fosters “asynchronous” learning. This allows a teenager to review a math video as many times as they need or participate in a discussion forum at their own pace. The LMS does not replace the teacher; instead, it amplifies their reach, allowing the classroom to become a space for practice while theory is managed flexibly on the platform.

If we take a look at the tools your children might be using at school, the undisputed queens are Google Classroom and Microsoft Teams. Both are options integrated into ecosystems we already know and are noted for their simplicity. However, in recent years, Canvas has burst onto the scene. Unlike the previous ones, Canvas was born specifically as a pure LMS and stands out for its highly visual and easy-to-use interface, allowing both students and parents to see the delivery calendar and grades very transparently at a glance. It is, possibly, the platform that best balances technical power with a modern user experience.

For projects seeking total independence from large corporations, the open-source standard is Moodle. It is the “veteran” of the group, an open-source option that allows for total customization. Although its interface may seem less “clean” than that of Canvas or Google, it is incredibly powerful for managing complex courses. It is the type of platform your children will likely encounter if they decide to pursue higher education or specialized technical training, as it offers much deeper pedagogical control than more commercial options.

But the world of free software doesn’t end with Moodle. There are other free and open gems like Chamilo, which stands out for being extremely lightweight and easy to learn (ideal if the educational center doesn’t want technical complications), or Sakai, which was designed by and for leading universities. These alternatives ensure that education does not depend on expensive licenses and foster a global community where software is improved collaboratively, conveying the values of sharing and building together to the students.

Online learning, moreover, extends beyond school hours. If your child has a special curiosity for programming, photography, or design, platforms like Udemy or Coursera are the ideal place. Udemy works as a global marketplace for practical and direct courses, ideal for learning specific skills quickly. Coursera, for its part, partners with prestigious universities (such as Stanford or MIT), offering a more formal academic structure. They are the perfect complements for a teenager to discover their vocation beyond the mandatory curriculum.

At the end of the day, the important thing is not just the tool, but the capacity it gives our children to own their own learning. A well-used LMS teaches them digital responsibility: knowing where to look for material, how to submit an assignment on time, and how to collaborate with other classmates remotely. These are skills that will serve them for life, regardless of whether they decide to be engineers, artists, or entrepreneurs in the future.

As I always say, technology should not be a wall, but a bridge. Don’t be afraid to take a look at these platforms with them. Ask them how they organize their folders in Classroom or what course catches their eye on Coursera. By getting involved, we show them that learning online is not a lonely task, but a shared adventure in which we can always guide them on the path of curiosity and discipline.

Suscríbete ahora

The announcement responds to a shift in the perception of new technologies that began a few years ago, primarily following scandals like the one involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Since then, a certain “techno-pessimism” has replaced those years when social media seemed like democratizing tools that had arrived to “make the world a better place.” Those were the days when it seemed Twitter was the cause of popular revolutions and not the cesspool of hate it has become today.

Since then, many voices have risen to denounce the negative impact social media has on the well-being of young people: loss of attention, increased intensity of youth bullying, privacy intrusions, and mental health issues related to self-esteem or sleep. The combination of mobile phones and social networks—especially Instagram and TikTok—has given rise to what Jonathan Haidt calls the “phone-based childhood.”

With this shift in perception, the first attempts to change the status quo have begun—a status quo that seemed to be driving us to leave our children in the hands of social media at increasingly younger ages. The mobile phone, and with it uncontrolled access to social networks, was being handed over earlier and earlier. Twelve years old seemed like the absolute ceiling that was impossible to exceed without giving them one, but for a long time now, it has been the “star gift” of the First Communion (between ages 7 and 10), and it is quite common to see smartphones in primary schools.

First came the changes in the regulation of schools and institutes, banning phones in classrooms. Regarding social media, Australia was the first country to make a move by banning access to those under 16; following them, others like France (15 years) and now Spain seem to be following the same line. If we set aside the noise that political polarization can create, we welcome the fact that attempts are finally being made to change a situation that was starting to become truly worrying. Let’s analyze the different aspects of this news.

Do Social Media Cause Mental Health Problems?

This is the most controversial point. Judging by the data, it seems evident that a global mental health epidemic has been recorded over the last ten years, especially affecting young people. Numerous experts from fields such as psychology, psychiatry, or sociology argue that there is no causal relationship between social media use and these problems. At this point, it is worth remembering that causality is not the same as correlation: just because two events are related doesn’t mean one causes the other.

However, many other researchers believe that the correlation between the two is, on its own, a reason to legislate on the matter, especially given the gravity of the problem. Others emphasize a point to keep in mind: use is not the same as abuse. Perhaps a reasonable use of social media does not have a negative impact, but its addictive design pushes many adolescents to use it uncontrollably, negatively affecting multiple aspects of their lives.

Can You Put Gates on the Internet Field?

One of the most unknown aspects for most families is the technical impact that the development of the law may have. At first glance, it is hard to believe the big tech companies when they claim they cannot determine a user’s age with certainty, especially considering the advanced AI systems they use to know our most intimate details. However, the question lies not only in the possibility of doing it but in doing it securely, without revealing our identity. The EU has been working for some time on a “digital passport” to facilitate these types of operations, though it is still years away from being available.

Another issue that has been highlighted in countries that have already passed similar laws is the technical “tricks” to bypass blocks. The most obvious is the use of a VPN. This technology allows a user to simulate a connection from another country where the age restriction does not apply. While it is true that for any measure approved, some kind of cheat will exist, it is no less true that not everyone has the technical knowledge to use it. Furthermore, disincentivizing—even if it doesn’t represent an absolute triumph in the short term—always represents progress in the long run when it comes to changing habits and customs.

And the Tech Companies, What About Them?

Many voices accurately point out that the true and definitive solution must involve a redesign of these types of applications. We are all familiar with the techniques social media uses to “vampirize” our attention: infinite scroll, instant gratification, social validation through likes, constant notifications... The algorithm they work with drags people—and more forcefully, adolescents—into an “echo chamber” effect where they come to believe that the world is, in fact, what is happening on their timeline.

Knowing these strategies, it wouldn’t hurt to demand that the companies creating these networks stop performing social engineering experiments on the minds of our youth. Their profit model based on advertising must be able to survive without turning the brain into a punching bag, constantly rattled by algorithms seeking their thirty seconds of glory at the expense of polarizing, poisoning, and destroying self-esteem through social comparison strategies.

The Role of Families

And what is our role as families in all this? Well, obviously, we must take the lead, regardless of what happens with the new law. The ultimate responsibility for everything that has happened so far is ours, and it will remain so. Beyond how “evil” social media can be, it is in our hands to educate our children in the responsible use of any type of technology. Warning them of the dangers, controlling their use, or proposing creative alternatives are tasks we should incorporate into our digital routine.

Of course, the most important part of education comes from the example we set. It is useless to try to explain to young people how harmful social media can be if we spend the day with our own noses buried in Instagram. One of the reasons the age of use plummeted was the inability of parents to forbid their children from something they themselves did not perceive as dangerous. Well, it is time we treat social networks as what they are: something as harmful, addictive, and dangerous as tobacco or alcohol. You wouldn’t let your children smoke or drink at 12 years old, would you? Exactly.

Compartir

A Final Reflection

I am reading many people saying that the law will not achieve the desired effect, that it has technical complications that aren’t being discussed, or that it is a cover to deflect attention from the government’s political problems. These types of comments seem cynical to me. What is the alternative? Denying that social media is related to multiple mental health issues by hiding behind certain statistical studies? Honestly, anyone who has children or pays a little attention to youth will realize that something is wrong and that we have lost control of the situation.

All the excuses and criticisms regarding the law will not hide the harsh reality: it is necessary to put a foot in the door and stop this spiral we have fallen into. Someday, we will look back and think how we were so naive and irresponsible to let our children connect, practically without control, to technologies with such harmful potential as current social media.

Doing nothing cannot be an option.

Enough is enough.

In sociology, the “third place” is that space that is neither home nor school (or work), but a social meeting point. For Gen Z, that place is called Discord.

What is Discord exactly?

Although we usually compare it to WhatsApp, Discord is actually a hybrid mix between Slack, Microsoft Teams, and a game room. It is a platform designed to create communities (called “servers”) where you can chat by text, talk by voice, and stream video in real-time.

If WhatsApp is a tool for quick messages, Discord is an always-open digital living room. You don’t just enter to send a message; you enter to “be” with others.

Why is it teenagers’ favorite tool?

It’s not just because of video games. Discord has managed to understand young people’s needs better than Facebook or even Instagram. Here are its key advantages:

• Privacy and Anonymity: Unlike WhatsApp, you don’t need to give out your phone number to talk to someone. You only require a username. This gives them a layer of privacy they value highly.

• Organization by Channels: Within a single server (the friend group), they can have separate channels for different topics: one for homework, one for music, one for the trendy game, and one for memes. Everything is tidy; it’s not a chaos of infinite messages.

• Superior Voice Quality: Its technology allows being on a voice call for hours without cuts and with very low resource consumption, which allows playing at the same time without the computer or mobile phone freezing.

• The “Bots”: Discord allows adding small automated programs (bots) that play music, launch polls, or automatically moderate group language.

• Sense of Belonging: Servers can range from a group of 5 school friends to massive communities. For example, the official Fortnite server in Spain has over 150,000 users, allowing kids with similar interests to meet and share tricks.

Servers: The Heart of the Platform

Everything on Discord happens in servers. Think of them as buildings where every room (channel) has a purpose.

• Private Servers: The most common. Closed groups of friends where you can only enter by invitation.

• Public Servers: Large fan communities about specific topics (anime, programming, YouTubers). Some content creators offer access to exclusive servers via paid subscriptions, creating a circle of trust with their followers.

• Roles and Hierarchies: Admins can assign “roles” to users (e.g., “Moderator,” “Pro Player,” “Newbie”). This gives a social structure they love and helps them self-manage their own communities.

From Video Games to the Study of “Metaverse”

Although born for gamers, Discord has exploded in use in other areas. During exams, it is common to see study servers where young people share screens to explain math problems to each other or review notes together. Discord bets on this integral community model, even integrating its own game store and streaming services.

It is such a powerful tool that, if you know how to use it, it becomes an unrivaled hub for productivity and leisure.

For those who have never explored this world, programming is, in essence, the art of communicating directly with machines—from the computer you are using to read this to the robot vacuum roaming your living room. Knowing how to code means moving past instruction manuals and starting to write your own; it is speaking to technology on its own terms using its own language.

Suscríbete ahora

The Myth of the “Digital Native” vs. the “Digital Creator”

We live in a hyper-technological world, and we often fall into the trap of thinking that our children, simply because they were born with a tablet in their hands, have already mastered technology. In a previous article, we already discussed how being a “digital native” does not guarantee real technical skills.

The majority of young people are experts at consuming: watching videos on YouTube, scrolling through TikTok, or chatting. They are users of interfaces designed to be addictive and easy. Knowing how to code changes the rules of the game. It puts you on the other side of the screen. It gives you the key to understanding how things work from the inside and empowers you to extract the full potential a machine has to offer. It is the difference between knowing how to drive a car and knowing how the engine works so you can improve it.

What Happens in a Child’s Brain When They Learn to Code?

Learning code isn’t just about learning a strange syntax; it is a form of “brain gymnastics” that develops skills transferable to any walk of life:

1. Computational Thinking This is the star benefit. It is a mental process that allows us to tackle complex problems in a structured way. It is based on three pillars:

   • Abstraction: The ability to identify the essentials of a problem while ignoring irrelevant details.

   • Decomposition: Learning to break a large problem (like “creating a video game”) into tiny, manageable sub-problems (like “making the character jump”).

   • Pattern Recognition: Identifying solutions we have used before to apply them to new problems, thereby creating algorithms.

2. Resilience and Frustraton Management In the programming world, there is a mantra: code never works the first time. “Bugs” or errors are constant. Coding teaches children that failing is part of the learning process. It forces them to analyze their own mistakes, to be patient, and to persist until the program “runs.” It is a fundamental life lesson: an error is not a failure; it is a clue.

3. Multidisciplinary Creativity Programming is often associated with “cold” mathematics, but it is an unparalleled creative tool. It is the blank canvas of the 21st century. A child can use code to compose generative music, create visual art, edit films, or design 3D worlds. It is the perfect bridge between the sciences and the arts.

4. Math with Meaning Let’s be realistic: math can be dry at school. However, in programming, math is the language of magic. Children learn geometry to position an object on a coordinate axis, pure logic to create conditionals (“if this happens, do that”), and calculus to measure speeds in a game. Here, mathematics has an immediate and fun purpose.

The Roadmap by Age: When to Start?

Coding is hard. We aren’t going to lie to ourselves or sell magic formulas. It requires consistent effort over years and constant updating because technology moves fast. However, the learning curve can be very rewarding if developmental stages are respected:

• From 4 to 6 years old (”Offline” logical thinking): At this age, the goal is not for them to write code, but to understand sequential logic. We can use board games, LEGO blocks to create color sequences, or even challenges in the hallway at home where the child must “give instructions” to their parents to get to the kitchen.

• From 7 to 11 years old (Block-based programming): This is the golden age of tools like Scratch. By not having to write code (only dragging pieces), the barriers of spelling and syntax are removed, allowing them to focus 100% on the logic of the story or game they are creating.

• From 12 years old (Text languages): With a solid logical foundation, they can make the jump to real languages like Python or JavaScript, where complexity increases but so do the professional possibilities.

Recommended Resources to Start Today

If you want your children to take their first steps, here is a selection of the best current educational ecosystems:

• Scratch (from MIT): The cornerstone of modern teaching. It’s free, has a massive global community, and allows for the creation of interactive stories and games using colored blocks. It is intuitive, friendly, and very visual.

• Code.org: A non-profit organization seeking to democratize access to computer science. They offer the famous “Hour of Code,” with tutorials set in worlds kids love (Star Wars, Frozen, or Minecraft) to learn basic concepts in 60-minute sessions.

• LEGO Education (BOOST and Mindstorms): For those who prefer to touch things. With LEGO BOOST (from age 7), children build models with sensors and motors that they control from an app. Mindstorms is the advanced version, oriented toward competitive robotics and more complex projects.

• Minecraft Education Edition: Not just a game. This educational version allows teachers and parents to create worlds where children must solve programming, chemistry, or history challenges. It’s a real first step toward what many call the “metaverse.”

• Arduino: An open-source electronic board. It is ideal for teenagers who want to create their own physical inventions: room alarms, automatic irrigation systems, or weather stations. It is the gateway to engineering and electronics.

• Mobile Apps: For short moments on the tablet, I recommend Code Karts (driving logic for the little ones), Kodable (very structured for initial levels), or Lightbot (a pure logic puzzle that hooks even adults).

Suscríbete ahora

Conclusion: A Challenge for Us Too

As parents, our role isn’t necessarily to be expert programmers, but curious companions. Learning to code alongside our children can be an incredible bonding experience. It’s about fostering that spark of curiosity to understand how the machines around us work, rather than simply accepting them as “black magic.”

Perhaps, in the process of helping your little ones move a digital cat across the screen, you’ll get bitten by the bug too. It’s never too late to start speaking the language of the future.

Compartir

One of the greatest risks of using AI as a school support tool is offloading the entire burden onto it, with students contributing zero effort. It is vital that we remind students that the “heavy lifting” of cognitive development must remain with them. Large language models like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Copilot are great for helping overcome “blank page syndrome” or assisting in final editing, but the core development must remain human.

Suscríbete ahora

Instead of asking ChatGPT to write a 10,000-word essay on the Industrial Revolution, it is better to ask it to suggest themes to cover if we are stuck, or to review a final draft for spelling and syntax to improve readability. We must train our way of thinking about the tools at our disposal so we don’t end up outsourcing our entire intellectual activity. We must narrow the scope of what we ask of them to maintain our identity and avoid becoming redundant.

One of the main issues with AI as an educational support technology is the famous “hallucinations.” Despite the mystical name, these are simply errors that are difficult to detect because of the high level of confidence language models display when constructing text. Wrong dates, non-existent references, mistaken names... The presence of hallucinations in a school assignment not only proves AI was used; it also indicates a low level of student engagement—they didn’t even stop to check the text.

Today, I’d like to introduce—for those “techie-moms and dads” who aren’t yet familiar with it—NotebookLM, a Google tool available for free (with certain limits). NotebookLM is a system that allows us to upload information in almost any format (text, video, audio, web pages) to a Google language model so that we can “work” the content however we choose. The possibility of hallucinations is virtually eliminated because NotebookLM will only answer questions based on the specific source material we have uploaded.

This is what NotebookLM looks like

Of course, it offers the same possibilities as ChatGPT or Gemini. If we upload a history book or a website about the Industrial Revolution, we could ask it to write that 10,000-word essay. However, the power of NotebookLM lies in the specific educational support tools it offers. We can create interactive mind maps, reports on specific topics of interest, explanatory infographics, or even slides for presentations. It allows us to generate an audio podcast where two people discuss the topic, and even create 5-to-10-minute educational videos where we can decide the talking points and the visual style.

Is creating a mind map from scratch the same for our learning as using one provided for us? Clearly not. The effort of understanding a text, extracting the main concepts, and linking them together helps create meaningful learning experiences. On the other hand, using content created by NotebookLM can be seen as a shortcut, but we aren’t delegating the entire job; we are leaning on the tool to facilitate our comprehension of the topic. A large part of the final result must still depend on us—on giving meaning to all the information we’ve gathered through the tool.

The potential of this Google tool to generate different educational formats makes it a powerful study ally. A process of source verification must still exist, since we work with the material we choose to upload. We are able to reorganize information to easily address issues related to diversity and personalized learning. It builds an immersive teaching process from a single source of information, including all kinds of interactivity.

These are the types of advancements that, despite still having cons, represent a very significant shift in how we study. My own study process now includes a compilation of information sources I consider reliable, and from those, I build materials that help me dive deeper into a subject with both theoretical and practical content.

Suscríbete ahora

The role of the teacher is changing. On one hand, they must guide students toward reliable sources and ensure they access them. From there, their task is to accompany students through more practical matters, where face-to-face interaction is much more valuable.

Most importantly, we have the opportunity to explain to young people why the option that might seem fastest and most efficient—surrendering ourselves completely to AI—is not necessarily the best idea in the long run. And we can have this debate not from a place of prohibition, but by offering alternatives that value AI while using it in a much more conscious way.

Compartir

What I was unaware of was the popularity of Roblox in that regard. If a teenager asks for it so casually, it means it has become a standard. For those who don’t know it, Roblox is a platform with a Minecraft-like aesthetic where users can create video games that also act as meeting spaces between avatars. Roblox is played daily by more than 150 million people, 40% of them under the age of 13.

Roblox has become a risk for the online safety of minors. It has filled up with extreme content open to everyone and has become an anonymous meeting point between adults and minors without any type of control. A few weeks ago, they announced facial recognition to detect the age of users and only grant communication permissions to users of similar ages. It is an attempt to dodge the tip of the iceberg, which are the cases of online pedophilia, but the design of the tool—fighting for attention without taking into account the user’s well-being—already poses a threat to such young ages.

Online identity and the consequences of digital anonymity have been one of the great subjects of study since the beginning of social communications on the internet. Chats like ICQ or IRC are part of my digital adolescence, and they were a first contact with that strange sensation of being part of a forum where you are only what YOU say you are. Then came social networks like MySpace, Facebook, or Instagram, and constructing your digital identity started to get complicated and required almost as much time as we dedicate to our offline lives.

Each of those digital spaces has had its rules, its risks, and its entertainments. It is difficult as a father or mother to think that you are going to have to immerse yourself in all of them until your children are capable of discerning the correct uses. Personally, social networks of any kind cause me more and more trouble. However, it is useful to get informed about our children’s main communication channels. Above all, with the goal of keeping them informed on the best way to make the most of them.

There is such a quantity of alternatives with which to build your digital identity that it is not necessary to do so through potentially toxic platforms. You can even survive being an adolescent and not having Instagram. Cases occur, however rare they may be, and from what is known, they are in a perfect state of social health. However impossible that might seem to a 14-year-old today.

Compartir

Perhaps it was the accumulation of negative news about social media practices designed to exploit our attention. Or perhaps, after nearly ten years of indiscriminate use of smart mobile devices, we began to perceive the impact they were having on our lives. To what extent they were modifying our habits, and not always in a way that was pleasant for us.

The truth is that the publication of The Anxious Generation, an exhaustive analysis by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt on the impacts of screens on the mental health of children and adolescents, provided a theoretical corpus to what was beginning to be a silent outcry: young people are suffering a global mental health epidemic that is directly related to the use of mobile devices and social networks.

In his book, Haidt deploys an arsenal of data and reflections showing how, since 2016, we have moved from a childhood mediated by play to one mediated by screens. This shift has resulted in a generation that is overprotected in the physical world, yet abandoned to their fate on the internet without any control over the multiple actors that threaten their mental health in various ways (cyberbullying, sleep problems, lack of self-esteem...).

As a result of this change in mindset, many families are beginning to organize to put the brakes on social dynamics that dictate an increasingly early use of screens. It seemed like a divine mandate: having to give our children a mobile phone when they started secondary school, at twelve years old. The age of access to social media had spiraled out of control, and we found children under ten using TikTok without any supervision. Putting a stop to these practices meant condemning the kids to social ostracism.

However, there is strength in numbers, and groups of mothers and fathers concerned about this issue are beginning to realize that, collectively, the isolation is cushioned. If everyone rows in the same direction, it is easier to impose healthy practices in young people’s relationship with technology. Delaying the age of handing over the first smartphone with internet and social media access has positive consequences in all aspects of life (psychological, academic, and social). With will, a little effort, and pacts between families, all of this is possible.

In Spain, the response has been particularly vigorous, organized, and adapted to the local cultural reality. The movement “Adolescencia Libre de Móviles” (ALM - Mobile-Free Adolescence) and its regional variants, such as the Asociación Adolescencia Libre de Móviles de Madrid (ALMMA) or family groups in Barcelona, have structured a community response based on the “Family Pact” tool. The sociological premise driving this strategy is clear: an individual parent who denies a mobile phone to their child condemns them to social ostracism and isolation; but if the entire class group, or a significant majority, agrees not to hand one over, the social pressure disappears, and the norm changes radically.

For families seeking to materialize this disconnection, the device market in 2025 has evolved significantly. It is no longer limited to old phones rescued from oblivion; a new category of devices designed intentionally for digital minimalism has emerged. However, in the European and Spanish context, there is a critical barrier that defines the viability of any device: WhatsApp.

In Spain and much of Europe, social, school, and extracurricular life is coordinated almost exclusively through WhatsApp. Therefore, a pure “dumb phone” (without the ability to install apps) can result in real social and logistical isolation for a Spanish teenager. The following analysis classifies the devices available in 2025 according to their ability to manage this reality, dividing them into categories ranging from minimalist purism to hybrid pragmatism.

Category A: Premium Minimalism (Design, Ethics, and Radical Disconnection)

These devices represent the vanguard of ethical design. They are created from scratch to offer a calm user experience, without the interruptions of the attention economy. They are ideal for families seeking total disconnection from social media and who are willing to assume the cost (economic and social) of not having WhatsApp integrated into the mobile device.

Light Phone III: The Light Phone III positions itself as the definitive evolution of technological minimalism. Unlike its predecessor, which used a small e-ink screen, this model incorporates a matte black-and-white AMOLED screen, designed to be legible but not stimulating. Its most notable feature is the inclusion of cameras, but under a unique philosophy: inspired by analog “point and shoot” cameras, they have a dedicated two-step shutter button and central focus, eliminating the immediacy of review and editing that fosters obsession with image.

Mudita Kompakt: Designed in Poland, the Mudita Kompakt is a European answer to the disconnection dilemma. It is an E-Ink device that prioritizes privacy and mental calm over immediacy. It runs MuditaOS K, an operating system based on Android but totally “de-googled” and closed, designed to protect user data and avoid distractions.

Punkt MP02 (New Generation): The Punkt MP02, designed by Jasper Morrison, is an icon of Swiss industrial design. It focuses exclusively on voice and text, with an added layer of security. A minimalist voice phone with physical keys. It uses Pigeon, an implementation of the Signal protocol, to offer encrypted messaging and secure voice calls over data.

Category B: The “European Compromise” (Classic Phones with WhatsApp)

This category represents the most pragmatic and viable solution for the majority of families in Spain. These are devices with a classic form factor (flip or bar type) that execute modified or simplified versions of Android. This allows for the installation and use of WhatsApp, but the user experience for browsing the internet or using social networks is so uncomfortable and limited that the teenager gives up doing so out of sheer friction.

TTFone TT970: A flip phone with large keys, originally designed for the senior market but massively adopted by the minimalist movement for its functionality. It runs a simplified version of Android 8.1. WhatsApp comes pre-installed and is fully functional, supporting voice calls and video calls. A crucial advantage is that it allows linking WhatsApp Web, making it easier for the teenager to manage long conversations from a computer, reducing time with the phone in hand.

Emporia TOUCHsmart.3: A robust Austrian design, also a flip phone, focused on simplicity and durability. It runs Android Go Edition, optimized for basic hardware. It features a dedicated physical button for WhatsApp, which facilitates direct access to communication without having to navigate menus, reinforcing its use as a communication tool and not for entertainment. Like the TTFone, its closed form factor and the combination of a small touch screen with a physical keyboard actively disincentivize “doomscrolling.”

SPC Zeus 4G Pro (The Local Spanish Option): A phone from the Spanish brand SPC, designed for the senior segment but adaptable. From the factory, it comes with a “Senior Mode” with giant icons that might be stigmatizing for a teenager. However, being Android, this mode can be deactivated. It is recommended to install a minimalist “launcher” (such as Niagara Launcher or Before Launcher) to transform the interface into a clean, modern text list, keeping WhatsApp and Spotify accessible but hiding distractions. It is fully compatible with Google Family Link, allowing parents to manage usage time and installations remotely.

Category C: “Lobotomized” Smartphones (Advanced Hybrids)

This category is for families looking to keep all modern tools (Spotify, Maps, Banking, WhatsApp, Notes) in a format that doesn’t look “grandpa-ish” or old, yet doesn't create the potential for addiction.

Qin F21 Pro / F22 Pro: Popularly known as “Xiaomi Qin” (a brand from the Duoqin ecosystem), these devices have the aesthetic of a classic bar phone (F21) or flip phone (F22) but hide a powerful Android smartphone inside. Their aesthetic is excellent (matte white, clean industrial design) and very attractive to young people. They run WhatsApp, Spotify, and Google Maps smoothly and quickly. They require a certain level of technical knowledge. Many imported versions come with Chinese software and without Google services. It is strongly recommended to buy versions modified for the European market (through specialized stores like Dumbwireless or Dumbdroid).

Unihertz Jelly Star: The world’s smallest Android 13 smartphone, with a screen of only 3 inches. It is a full smartphone without software restrictions. The “disconnection” is achieved through physical friction: its tiny size makes consuming visual content (TikTok, YouTube, Netflix) physically uncomfortable and unsatisfying after a few minutes. Decent camera, NFC for mobile payments, full app support. Its transparent, “techy” design with rear LED lights makes it visually attractive and modern for teenagers.

These are some of the most popular options for all those who want to take the step of seeking digital well-being for their children and are looking for the right technology to do so with the least impact. Remember that there are many alternatives to avoid social isolation while simultaneously enjoying the benefits that a disconnected youth provides them.

The “Gamer” Phenomenon: More Than Just a Hobby

Does your child speak an incomprehensible language full of gamer slang? Do they sit in silence with their friends, mesmerized by their phone screen? Don’t worry, your child is one of the more than 18 million players in Spain. The video game industry has grown dizzyingly, surpassing traditional entertainment giants in revenue:

A “Guys’ Thing”? Not at All!

Forget the stereotype. Today, parity in the number of players is almost total. In fact, in key age ranges (like 10 to 14 years old), girls spend more hours “hitting the controller” (as my mother would say) than boys!

Average weekly playtime in Spain: 8.1 hours. (A fairly moderate number compared to other countries).

The Dominance of the Small Screen

While the classic console is still a favorite, the Smartphone is quickly gaining ground. PCs and Tablets also have their place in the gamer’s heart.

💡 In short: Players are no longer “weirdos” prone to isolation. They are at the center of one of the most present and vibrant cultures of our time, serving as a primary means of socialization for youth. You don’t want to be left on the sidelines!

A Quick Map of Gamer Diversity

To close that generational gap, let’s do a quick review of what types of games they’re hooked on. There is life (a lot of it) beyond Fortnite:

1. Multiverses: Creativity Without Limits

Open environments where players, through their avatars, can develop their creativity and build. The icon: Minecraft, a social phenomenon that is much more than a game.

2. Shooters: Pure Action

First-person action games (”I am the weapon”). Examples: The classics Call of Duty and Counter-Strike, or the recent smash hit: Valorant.

3. Battle Royale: The Last One Standing

The dynamic is to endure and be the last survivor among many simultaneous players. Examples: Fortnite (the “nightmare” of many parents) or the mobile phenomenon Stumble Guys.

4. Sports: Passion on the Joystick

Soccer, basketball, F1... Any sport! Iconic example: FIFA/EA Sports FC, often an intergenerational delight.

5. RPG (Role-Playing Games): Character Evolution

Players control a character who evolves, acquires skills, and advances in a narrative. Famous subcategory: Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs), like the infamous World of Warcraft (WOW).

6. Arcade: Challenges and Reflexes

Platformers, puzzles, adventures of all kinds. Pop Icons: Super Mario or Sonic.

7. Simulators: Playing at Being Someone Else

From airplanes, trains, amusement parks... and even lives (The Sims).

Heads Up: AAA releases (the big blockbusters) are true cultural events that take years of work. An informed parent should know that not all types of games have the same impact.

Not Too Much Prohibition, Not Too Much Freedom: Pros and Cons

The reality is that video games, rather than a problem, are a parenting management challenge. It’s an immersive form of entertainment that requires parents to set boundaries.

Debunking Common Myths

• Do they induce violence? This idea lacks any statistical basis. In fact, some studies indicate that the countries where people play the most are the safest! Attributing youth violence solely to a game is oversimplifying; it’s like saying a cannibal became one because they played Parcheesi.

• Are they an addiction? The WHO defines “Gaming disorder” as a behavioral disorder, and studies indicate it only affects about 0.5% of the population. There is a big difference between having to set limits on playtime and having a serious behavioral problem!

The Benefits That Do Exist

In moderation, video games offer multiple cognitive and social benefits:

• Cognitive Development: They help improve creative skills, planning, and strategic thinking.

• Social Development: They allow them to develop their digital identity (through avatars) and be part of one of the largest and most vibrant cultural communities that exist.

• General Well-being: They contribute to well-being and much-needed mental health.

The Great Challenge: Connect!

Managing their use, the number of hours, and the consoles is a constant challenge, yes. But it requires an effort on our part to understand their cultural relevance. Video games are also a huge opportunity to share experiences. As digital as they may be, that time together can be not only fun but also constructive.

🔗 Tech-Dad/Mom Recommendation: If you’ve fallen to the bottom of the generational gap, I recommend The Good Gamer. It’s an educational project that offers valuable information for getting started safely in this culture.

Go ahead and ask them what they’re playing today!

What is clear is that, given the choice, we prefer screen time to be as productive as possible. We look for apps with an educational twist, ones that offer something more than simple entertainment. Because, let’s be honest, popping balloons with your finger can be very exciting for the first five minutes, but after a while, your head feels like one of those balloons about to burst.

Suscríbete ahora

Two Perspectives, One Same Game

It is essential to pause and think about what we look for in an app and what they look for.

For our children, it is a way to explore new digital experiences, a playground where they can try, touch, and make mistakes. Ultimately, they learn. For us, as parents, apps are a fantastic opportunity to interact with them from a more level playing field. In the digital world, physical abilities are equalized, and they regain some control over the game.

Our role changes: we go from being game directors to being mentors and observers, accompanying them in their digital discovery.

The Definitive Checklist for Choosing Wisely

Choosing an app shouldn’t be random. You need to assess everything from their developmental level to their psychomotor skills. There is no point in offering them a game with complex creative dynamics if they still struggle to drag and drop elements on the screen.

To help you with this mission, I have created a list of 12 key criteria for evaluating any children’s app:

1. Connects with their passions: Children learn naturally when something interests them. If the app is about dinosaurs, space, or animals, and that’s what fascinates them, half the battle is won.

2. Is age-appropriate: The app must align with their abilities. It is crucial not to cross the fine line that separates a motivating challenge from a source of frustration.

3. Zero ads and distractions: Pop-ups, advertising, or a screen overloaded with stimuli break concentration and cause them to lose interest. Less is more!

4. Encourages real interaction: The child must be an active participant, not a mere spectator. The app should invite them to make decisions and interact with what is happening on the screen.

5. Has simple and intuitive controls: It must be easy to use so they can quickly learn to navigate it and focus on what’s important: the content and the game.

6. Has a learning focus: Look for apps that use didactic approaches or handle theoretical concepts (numbers, letters, logic, creativity) playfully.

7. Allows for co-creation: The best experiences are shared ones. If the app allows parents and children to participate together in the process, engagement and fun multiply.

8. Promotes “give and take”: It’s great when parents and children can alternate control. Sometimes, you learn as much by observing as by doing.

9. Builds bridges with the real world: An app that connects the digital with day-to-day experiences creates much deeper and more meaningful learning. For example, an app about plants that encourages them to look for leaves in the park.

10. Drives dialogue and collaboration: Apps that propose challenges to be solved as a team are fantastic for developing social and communication skills.

11. Contributes to their development: The app must provide value. It doesn’t always have to be academic content; it can also be an improvement in fine motor skills, problem-solving, or creativity.

12. Fits with your family culture: The application must adapt to your routines and values. Its rules and message must be in tune with those you promote at home.

Some Recommendations

If your son/daughter is between 4 and 6 years old and you are beginning to experiment with using apps to have a good time together, here are some examples of apps that meet many of the characteristics described above. Install them, try them out with the little ones, and find the one they like best.

• Toca Boca World

• Pepi Wonder World

• Dr Panda Town

• Sago Mini World

• Lego Duplo World

• Miga Town

You Set the Rules

Evidently, not all apps will perfectly fulfill all 12 points. This list is a guide. Sometimes we will only be looking for something simple to introduce them to using a tablet, and other times we will need more structured support for learning numbers or the alphabet.

In the end, it is you, the parents, who decide what to ask of an app at any given time.

I hope this guide is very helpful in your next search!

Suscríbete ahora

The world, in general, is lonely. We could say, without fear of exaggeration, that there is an epidemic of loneliness that was exacerbated during and after the pandemic. It is not just the elderly who suffer from it; the slow disappearance of many of the social structures that sustained our personal relationships (unions, parishes, youth organizations...) has created a void that is difficult to fill. And as if that were not enough, the remains of what was left of our social relationships, we have burned at the altar of social media, which promised us dozens, hundreds of friends. In return, it has given us “likes” and bonds so ephemeral they disappear as soon as there is no Wi-Fi available.

It was only a matter of time before people began turning to chatbots to alleviate that loneliness. It only took a couple of sharp Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to see the opportunity before their eyes for the first AI Companions to appear. Character.ai and Replica are two of the most famous examples, but it is easy to predict that these types of applications will become increasingly popular.

What is the secret of these chatbots that gets people—adults and teenagers alike—hooked on them? Basically, they act as a loyal, tireless friend who always agrees with you. 24/7, no matter what you say or do, they will always be on your side, reinforcing your way of seeing things. Who is going to want one of those annoying flesh-and-blood friends who not only question you, but are also sometimes unavailable when you need them most?

A study by the non-profit organization Common Sense Media has revealed that 72% of American teenagers have used these applications at least once, and 52% use them regularly. As expected, the first cases of suicide where these types of bots are involved have already begun to appear. You cannot blame AI for something as tragic and complex as a teenage suicide, but it is a warning sign that we should not ignore.

The Reuters agency has published an investigation into Meta’s (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) policy regarding the way its AI systems communicate with younger users. The leaked internal document, named “GenAI: Content Risk Standards,” details the limits of what Zuckerberg’s company considers acceptable when engaging in a conversation with a minor. Phrases like “Your youthful figure is a work of art” or “Every inch of you is a masterpiece, a treasure I hold deeply.” Perhaps to us, they sound cheesy, but in the hyper-hormonal mind of a 14-year-old, they can land like a bombshell.

The mental health risks that these chatbots pose to our children should not be ignored. If a kid is going through a tough time or has mental health problems, they can be another stone in their pockets as they sink into the well. Furthermore, there is a high risk of isolation due to the humanization of AI systems, whose mission is to reinforce our beliefs and offer false empathy to achieve our constant interaction. It’s hard to resist the promise of a companion who never questions us.

We have built a society where we tolerate disagreement less and less. We break off relationships because the other person does not have the same political convictions, and we find it impossible to fall in love with someone who does not share our most superficial tastes. This is fertile ground for big tech companies, which have already demonstrated their lack of scruples by exploiting our emotional needs to slip us hard drugs in the form of social media. Their promise to keep us connected with our peers has resulted in an existential void that they now promise to fill with their artificial intelligence robots.

As parents, our mission must be to take the initiative and educate our children in the responsible and creative use of AI. We must show them the possibilities of a technology that can bring great benefits. But if we let it be shaped exclusively by the interests of the boards of large tech corporations, it will end up locking us in echo chambers. It will be impossible to hear anything but our own voice crying for help.