"Children should use Windows because it is what is used in the workplace."  One
often hears this argument from people who haven't thought about the role of
computers in education.  It is particularly frightening to hear this type of
argument from educators, who really should know better.  Although I don't
propose to know anything about education, it is easy to see the logical fallacy
in such an argument just from my experience.  Through my trip through the school
system, I have found that:  First, computers are means to an end, not an end in
itself.  Second, one platform does not dominate across all possible disciplines
and career choices.  Third, computer technology changes extremely rapidly.  For
these reasons, it is easy to see that arguments like the one above to favor one
platform or another fall apart under scrutiny.

The fundamental flaw in the argument is that it puts computers as the purpose of
education, not as a means to an end.  Teachers and parents who advocate this are
completely missing the point as this is absolutely the wrong way to think about
computers in education.  The brand of computer being used should not matter any
more than a particular brand of text books or pencils being used, as long as
they both serve the purpose of learning.  In a classroom, children should be
taught to compose a piece of prose, not to "use Microsoft Word". They should
learn how to do internet research and critically analyze the findings, not to
"use Internet Explorer".  They should be taught how to take and record data, not
"use Excel".  The software are merely tools.  Educators are doing the children
disservice if all they take away from a lesson is  "how use such and such
program".  Rather, they should be learning something that can be applied to all
fields of study and experience. To this end, the Macintosh platform has no lack
of capabilities compared to its competitors.  In fact, its relative ease of use,
and its general tendency to stay out of the way of the user to do what they
want, is more appropriate for this purpose.

To reiterate this point, I would like to give an example.  I, and others of my
generation, probably had our first classroom computer experience on Commodore
PETs or computers of like capabilities.  We enjoyed learning with programs such
as "Turtle Graphics" and "Lemonade".  By the logic used by the proponents of
Windows in the classroom, all of my classroom computer time was a waste, and I
am unprepared for the "Workplace".  Obviously, I take exception to this.
Perhaps, if the teacher made it the point of lessons to learn the PET's BASIC
based commands and cassette tape based file managment, the lessons would have
been obsolete. Fortunately, my teachers were smarter than that.  The Commodores
were used to run "Antonyms" programs, to teach vocabulary.  They were used to
run "Lemonade" to teach us math and analytical thinking skills.  They were used
to run "Turtle Graphics" to introduce us to the concept of programming.  The
point is, whether these lessons were taught on a 1MHz monochrome computer or the
latest Pentium PC's with all the multimedia frills, they were just means to an
end, that of education.  It should be obvious that teaching "Windows" for its
sake or "Mac OS" for its sake would be just as useless as teaching me the
Commodore PET interface.  To reiterate, they are just tools to be used to aid
the educators in their lessons.  Understanding that, the Macintosh platform has
no lack of educational software for subjects from arithmetic to reading and
spelling.

Obviously, what I have written so far applies mainly to primary and early
secondary education.  I do understand the need to use a particular tool for the
few cases where that is appropriate, such as vocational programs available at
some high schools.  Thes programs exist to provide skills immediately applicable
to certain tasks (word processing, auto repair, woodworking) so as to aid the
students in getting summer jobs at local business establishments, or possibly to
aid them in getting a "taste" of their future careers.  I fully agree that
Windows based curriculum may be needed for such programs.  As useful as these
are in the short term, however, it does little to enhance the overall career
opportunities of the students.  I sincerely hope that the students have better
ambitions than this.  Do any of them really think, "I want to type letters for a
living"?  Much advanced computer science research is done using UNIX, and
increasingly, the free alternative Linux.  Biotechnology research also heavily
relies on UNIX, and quite often, Macintoshes.  The Macintosh still has large
share in publishing and content creation, including music and video production.
I am an electrical engineer, and I use a UNIX workstation for my daily work of
electronic circuit design. Even if the "same-platform-as-the-workplace" myth is
true, pushing Windows shortchanges those students who, through inclination or
talent, would like to enter those fields dominated by other platforms.  In all
but the most un-ambitious of career goals, typing letters or punching
spreadsheets should be just a small part of one's skill set. Communicating
effectively, thinking critically, and other general skills are far more
important.  Focusing on such a small subset of skills, and basing computer
purchasing decisions them, is short sighted to say the least.  Ideally, students
are best served by exposing them to all kinds of tools fit for different tasks.
But exposing them to tools doesn't mean they should learn particular
implementations of technology.

The third aspect of the flaw in the argument is the assumption that computer
technology and interface will remain the same over the 15+ years it takes for a
child to enter the workforce.  Even for a high school senior, there is a 4+
years gap between graduation and entering the workforce.  These days, computer
technology becomes obsolete before they leave the store. For this reason,
focusing on a particular technology is the wrong thing to do.  For example, I
was part of my high school's "Regional Occupational Program", a type of
vocational education class I mentioned earlier.  In this class, I learned how to
use AutoCAD release 10 for DOS running on a 80286-based PC.  This was the latest
and greatest, until release 11 was introduced late in the term.  Needless to
say, if I even mentioned this on my resumes when I was looking for employment
after college, my potential employers would have given me funny looks. Look at
it another way:  When I was in high school, "what they used in the workplace"
was MS-DOS.  My keyboarding class was based on WordPerfect for DOS, which was
"the Standard". All of the F-key commands I learned (even if I remembered them)
are now practically useless. In fact, the Macintosh interface of the time far
more closely resembles what Word for Windows looks like today than WordPerfect
ever did.  I do note, however, that even though the specifics of the particular
program I used are nearly useless, the general skill of touch typing has been,
and will remain, invaluable.  This reiterates my point.  The tools are not
nearly as important as the generally applicable lessons learned.

As I hope I've demonstrated, there are some valid reasons to pick one platform
or another for education, but "what they use in the workplace" is not one of
them.  It is what you learn with the computer that is important, not what
computer you learn. Windows majority doesn't mean every career requires windows
skills, and particular software skills become obsolete very quickly.  Schools
should choose their computers on the basis of fitness for the educational tasks
at hand (Macintoshes are fully capable of this), overall cost of maintenance
(purchase price is only a small portion of this), and support from the vendor
(Apple has years of experience in assisting educators).

Postscript

There is one angle I feel strongly about that I didn't mention in the main
passage, as it is orthogonal to my main argument.  It is the fact that Microsoft
Corporation was found guilty of illegal business practices in federal court.
Before and during the trial, Microsoft officials and executives have shown
utter disrespect for the law and ethical behavior.
By using their products, we tacitly condone their
actions.  I believe that this is not the kind of behavior that we want to
encourage in schools.

Initial Entry: 8/19/2002
Minor edits: 9/13/2003