Testing 32 laptops out of 310 isn't testing—it's the appearance of testing
Durante más de dos décadas, Colombia ha intentado cerrar la brecha digital llevando tecnología a sus aulas más remotas; sin embargo, una adquisición masiva de computadores entre 2022 y 2023 convirtió esa promesa en su contrario. Más de 120.000 estudiantes de escuelas públicas en regiones ya vulnerables quedaron sin acceso a herramientas digitales funcionales cuando 41.000 de los 76.000 portátiles distribuidos comenzaron a fallar poco después de llegar a las aulas. Lo que debía abrir oportunidades se convirtió en una lección sobre lo que ocurre cuando los controles del Estado ceden ante la prisa y los intereses del proveedor.
- 76.000 portátiles adquiridos por 57.000 millones de pesos comenzaron a apagarse solos, congelarse y bloquear a los estudiantes fuera del sistema operativo semanas después de su entrega.
- El control de calidad fue prácticamente inexistente: apenas 32 de 310 equipos y 200 de 13.000 unidades fueron inspeccionados antes de llegar a las escuelas de Antioquia, Santander, Cauca y Nariño.
- El proveedor Selcomp Ingeniería no solo suministró los equipos defectuosos, sino que también administraba la mesa de quejas, creando un conflicto de interés que permitió que los problemas se minimizaran en lugar de resolverse.
- La Contraloría investiga si hubo daño al patrimonio público, mientras el gobierno actual atribuye las compras a la administración anterior y afirma haber reemplazado los equipos fallidos con más de 158.000 portátiles de mayor calidad.
- Para decenas de miles de estudiantes en las regiones más desatendidas del país, la promesa de la educación digital no llegó rota en abstracto: llegó rota en una caja.
En Colombia, el programa Computadores para Educar lleva más de veinte años intentando llevar tecnología a estudiantes y docentes en regiones remotas y económicamente vulnerables. Pero una compra realizada entre 2022 y 2023 invirtió ese propósito: 76.000 portátiles de la marca Compumax, adquiridos por cerca de 57.000 millones de pesos, comenzaron a fallar semanas después de distribuirse en escuelas de Antioquia, Santander, Cauca y Nariño. Para junio de 2024, más de 41.000 máquinas habían presentado fallas documentadas. Más de 120.000 estudiantes quedaron sin acceso al equipamiento que debía acercarlos al mundo digital.
La contratación estuvo marcada por señales de alerta desde el principio. En diciembre de 2022 se firmó un pedido inicial de 40.000 equipos; dos meses después, el contrato creció a 60.000 unidades por aproximadamente 45.000 millones de pesos. El proveedor, Selcomp Ingeniería, recibió el 50 por ciento del valor del contrato por adelantado, antes de que se verificara el funcionamiento de un solo equipo. La revisión técnica fue mínima: de un lote de 310 portátiles se inspeccionaron 32; de una entrega de 13.000 unidades, apenas 200. El resto fue directo a las aulas.
Cuando los problemas se acumularon, Selcomp atribuyó las fallas a los discos duros y ofreció reemplazarlos. Los informes técnicos, sin embargo, revelaron algo más profundo: corrupción de software, vulnerabilidades de seguridad y fallas de hardware que sugerían equipos defectuosos de origen o reacondicionados y vendidos como nuevos. La situación se complicó aún más porque era el propio proveedor quien gestionaba las quejas de docentes y estudiantes, lo que equivalía a pedirle que investigara sus propias fallas.
La Contraloría General abrió una investigación por posible daño al patrimonio público. La ministra de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones, Carina Murcia Yela, señaló que las compras ocurrieron antes de que el presidente Gustavo Petro asumiera el cargo, y afirmó que los equipos defectuosos ya fueron reemplazados y que su gobierno ha distribuido más de 158.000 portátiles bajo una nueva estrategia de educación digital. Lo que no cambia es que, durante meses, los estudiantes que más necesitaban esa tecnología fueron quienes más la perdieron.
Across Colombia, something that was supposed to open doors has been closing them instead. More than 120,000 students in public schools found themselves without working computers after a massive procurement through the state's Computers for Education program went catastrophically wrong. The machines—76,000 laptops purchased for roughly 57 billion pesos between 2022 and 2023—began failing within weeks of arriving in classrooms across Antioquia, Santander, Cauca, and Nariño. Some wouldn't power on. Others froze mid-use or overheated until they shut down. A few locked students out of the operating system entirely. By June 2024, officials had documented failures in more than 41,000 of the machines.
The Computers for Education initiative has operated for more than two decades under the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology, built on a straightforward mission: deliver technology to students and teachers, particularly in remote and economically disadvantaged regions, and train educators to use digital tools effectively in the classroom. It was meant to narrow the gap. Instead, this particular purchase created a different kind of divide—between schools that received working equipment and those that received expensive paperweights.
The procurement itself raised immediate red flags. In December 2022, the ministry signed an order for 40,000 laptops. Two months later, in February 2023, the contract ballooned to 60,000 units for approximately 45 billion pesos. The supplier, a company called Selcomp Ingeniería, received 50 percent of the contract value upfront—22.5 billion pesos—before a single machine was verified to work. The laptops themselves came from a brand called Compumax.
Quality control, if it existed at all, was theater. From a shipment of 310 laptops, inspectors tested only 32. From a delivery of 13,000 units, technicians examined 200. The rest went straight into schools. Adding another layer of conflict, Selcomp didn't just supply the equipment—the company also operated the complaint desk where teachers and students reported problems. The supplier was essentially investigating itself.
When failures mounted, Selcomp initially blamed the hard drives and offered to replace them. But technical reports told a different story. The problems ran deeper: software corruption, security vulnerabilities, and fundamental hardware malfunctions that no simple component swap could fix. The machines were broken in ways that suggested either catastrophic manufacturing failures or equipment that had been refurbished and resold as new.
The Comptroller's Office has opened an investigation into whether public funds were mismanaged and whether the state's patrimony suffered damage. Meanwhile, the government's position has shifted. Carina Murcia Yela, the current Minister of Information and Communications Technology, stated that these purchases actually occurred before President Gustavo Petro took office, placing responsibility with the previous administration. She also claimed that many of the defective machines have already been replaced with higher-quality equipment, and that her government has since distributed more than 158,000 laptops through a revised digital education strategy.
What remains clear is that for months, perhaps longer, tens of thousands of students in some of Colombia's most underserved regions lost access to the very technology that was supposed to help them learn. The program's original promise—to bring digital tools to those who needed them most—collided with procurement practices that prioritized speed and supplier relationships over basic verification. The question now is not whether the equipment failed, but why so little was done to catch the failure before it reached classrooms.
Citações Notáveis
The equipment delivered has largely been replaced with higher-quality machines, and this government has distributed more than 158,000 laptops through an updated digital education strategy.— Minister Carina Murcia Yela
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does a government program designed to help poor students end up harming them?
Because somewhere between intention and execution, accountability disappeared. The ministry had the money, the supplier had the machines, but nobody was actually checking if the machines worked before they shipped them out.
But didn't anyone test them?
Technically, yes. But testing 32 laptops out of 310, or 200 out of 13,000—that's not testing. That's the appearance of testing. It's the kind of number you write in a report so you can say you followed procedure.
And the supplier was also handling complaints?
Exactly. Selcomp sold the computers and then ran the desk where people complained about the computers. They had every incentive to minimize the problem, to blame the hard drives instead of admitting the whole batch was compromised.
What does this mean for the students who needed these machines?
It means they waited. They waited for equipment that never worked, in schools that probably didn't have the budget to buy replacements themselves. Meanwhile, students in better-funded districts had working computers.
Is anyone being held accountable?
The Comptroller is investigating. The government is pointing backward, saying the previous administration made the purchase. But the students don't care about the blame game. They care that they still don't have the tools they were promised.