Ok, some thoughts on this...
First off, I remember an interview with Steve Jobs where he basically said that the notion of computers making education better -- on their own -- was just wrong, and has been proven so by numerous studies. What Steve's stated position was, as I recall, is that you have to recognize that computers are a means, and not an end.
The problem with many schools' implementation of technology in their curriculum is that they use it as an end. The computer becomes a babysitter instead of just another tool, like paper, pencils, chalk and chalk boards, etc. This methodology isn't getting us anywhere, other than perhaps in the area of basic computer literacy. However, concomitant with achieving instructed computer literacy is having educators who are, themselves, computer literate and not computer phobic. And frankly far too many of the teachers I have either met or heard about anecdotally are computer illiterate. I mean, if a teacher can't tell the difference between network- or Internet-related web browsing issues and the fact that their monitor is turned off or unplugged, then how the heck can you expect that person to ever effectively instruct their students in technology?
Putting more computers in schools in and of itself is about as useless as simply (and endlessly) pumping more and more money into the schools. Neither of them represent a direct mechanism of, nor a direct path for, the much-needed educational improvement in this country.
Secondly, let's look at exposure to one OS vis a vis exposure to multiple operating systems.
I've made this argument on this message board before, so if it seems a bit familiar to you, then no, it's not just your monitor or the brand of cola you've been drinking.
The computer world used to include a cornucopic verisimilitude in both OS and hardware platforms, and that essentially coalesced by about 1994, polarizing into a MacOS/Windows world. And look at what's happened since. If you were to conduct a survey, you would find that most people you'd ask who presently own a computer never owned one prior to 1994, or 1995. And since most people who have owned computers from that time forward have owned Microsoft OS product-driven computers, it follows that most people today know nothing but Microsoft OS-based computers. This is something which Microsoft happens to exploit the living daylights out of, and is perhaps the single biggest reason (though not the only one) they've been able for so long to maintain their monopoly even in spite of their product's poor quality. This is a perfect example of the paradigm that "Ubiquity trumps Everything".
I started using computers back in 1985, and really got into things (and into the mix) around 1987, while in high school. With apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien and King Theoden, I'm fortunate in my friends. I've used Apple IIs, C64s and C128s, Tandy computers including their CoCo, TRS-80s, and more, IBM-PCs running DOS, Amigas, Ataris -- in other words, a large portion of the gamut -- and so I am very cognizant of the nature, the existence and the benefits of alternatives. I also hail from a time where the computer enthusiast movement abounded. Now-a-days, it's a totally comoditized market with few true practitioners, and mostly just freeloaders and those who want to have the status without actually rolling up their sleeves and doing anything to earn it.
I have incalculably benefitted from using more than one OS; and I have equally-well benefitted from learning from those who were (and still are) computer enthusiasts. Anyone who argues the view contrary to this one is wrong, ignorant and hopelessly short-sighted. (They're also a few other things, but I won't mention those words here since this is a "family-friendly" message board.)
Thirdly, let's take a look at the software patent situation.
This is a joke, and it's the worst kind of joke. It's turned a system that was supposed to spur innovation into a monster which stifles innovation in favor of valuing only the first person to "get there". It's turned the system upside down and into a minefield, and if it hasn't already it's sure to soon become the bane of America's -- and perhaps the world's -- existence. The E.U. shot down software patents, and while I'm proud of them for it, I'm ashamed of my own government for not doing the same thing.
Hey, I've got an idea. How about in this next election cycle, we kick everyone out of office everywhere, and put in nothing but brand new people. Sure, they may not know the ropes, and yes they might not act as a cohesive whole, but at least it won't be such an easy job for the business world to control all of them. And maybe, just maybe, if they don't go passing as many new laws, we won't have as many bad laws and future battles to fight.
