On our list of accomplishments in education is the fact that hundreds of thousands of school children are now part of the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) programme.Children in rural areas are now allowed a window to the world that they wouldn’t have had otherwise – unless they have discovered Angry Birds or Facebook, and don’t do much else on those machines. The principle behind OLPC is the fact that a sub-$200 machine can drastically change the education and lives of pupils in developing countries who otherwise wouldn’t have access to a laptop. (The Indian Aakash tablet seeks to do much the same at a much lower cost of about $40).I am always surprised, however, by the contrasts in how the education system seeks to increase the reach of technology to students. For example, even though primary school students own OLPC PCs, students in most high schools are not allowed to carry laptops to school, let alone cell phones. The paradox of seeking to be an IT-hub with a public school system that bans cell phones shouldn’t easily be lost on us; how are university students expected to create Android applications that compete internationally/regionally, yet for the most part their competition has had an eight-year head-start on them? The very same students get a few hours a week at the computer lab if they are lucky, at which time a teenage developer in the US has mustered two programming languages. My first class in college was a C++ programming class; three quarters of the class had programming experience in languages like Java, and even if I sat in the class, I still wasn’t quite sure what programming entailed! Tragically, my computer knowledge was limited to Microsoft Office, Solitaire and Yahoo mail. Students should be allowed phones (a phone station at each computer lab would also provide access to those who cannot afford phones) with increased access to computers, of course within a controlled environment that promotes skills development (Android development, programming, etcetera) and not simply the excessive use of social media.  This brings me back to OLPC… In my humble opinion it makes no sense to put technology into students hands in their pre-teenage years, take it away during high school, place it back within their reach in university – all the while expecting to produce world-class engineers. I certainly agree that putting one OLPC machine in a pupil’s hands can change their world dramatically, but I think a bigger picture has to be put into consideration given our targets and goals as a country; one laptop in a child’s hands will not drastically transform the future of this country unless that level of access and connectivity is promised all through their academic (and non-academic) path. The truth is that some of those laptops cost higher than a number of teachers’ salaries, and if we are willing to incur the huge financial cost of these devices, then we need to see a return on that investment through innovation down the road. It may be too early to tell given that the pilot students of the OLPC program are still in high school – but unless they can continue building on that tech foundation all through high school, then the ROI may not be impressive. Lastly, as we continue roll-out of these devices, what are we doing to measure their impact on education? What has been the learning curve of the teachers who had to quickly adapt to new instruction methods? Even though we are certain that the school children like their laptops, have they actually helped them learn incrementally more than they did before OLPC? Not only does this shape education programs, but it also provides direction on the best course of action for our country.