Hi Edward, Many thanks for your comments. When I used the word 'steep' above, I did not mean it in a pejorative sense. I used it in its sense of being 'high or lofty', and not 'unduly high or lofty'. (The word can convey either; my apologies if this has led to any misunderstandings.) Whatever the definition, just because a cost is steep (or expensive or dear) certainly doesn't mean that such a cost should not be borne -- and that the end results won't be profitable (however one defines the term). Nor, of course, that it should be borne just because it seems like a good idea. I agree with you 100% that "When you say that something is expensive, you have to say also, compared with what?" (And I would agree with your next sentence as well, if you used the words 'costs' instead of 'prices'.) The point of my blog post here is to highlight some of the many choices available when comparing and evaluating investments like what we are seeing under Plan Ceibal (and, truth be told, to help contribute in a small way to getting the word out more broadly about what is happening there). You are, I think, right to argue that the costs associated with Ceibal are most correctly evaluated when looking not only at the impact on the formal education sector, but against broader economic and societal development measures as well (I suspect many people in Uruguay are thinking the same way). Even within the education sector in many countries, choices of investments in things like computers (and digital content) are not only set against investments in things like printed textbooks (which some people see digital learning resources largely replacing) but against things like school feeding programs or vaccine programs for children -- two areas where the economics of such investments are often quite compelling, and based on a strong existing evidence base. Our global evidence base relevant to the investment in things like Plan Ceibal is not as strong as for investments in things like school lunches and vaccines. But this does not mean that investments such as those being made in Uruguay should not be made. I know that many people are looking to the emerging Uruguayan experience to help provide an important contribution some of this evidence base -- and it is encouraging that there appear to be so many people in Uruguay interested in rigorously investigating the costs and benefits (variously defined) of what is happening there. There is more than a little of the 'chicken and egg' dilemma for policymakers contemplating large scale investments in ICTs in education. I am regularly told by policymakers in the education sector that, while they believe intuitively that such investments are important, and could well become transformative, they don't feel that existing data allow them to make as strong a case as they would like when in conversations with (for example) the Ministry of Finance for expanded financial support. Evidence from programs like Plan Ceibal and its successors (and initiatives like those happening in Portugal and Maine, to cite prominent 1-to1 computing initiatives), both in terms of its impact on educational outcomes, and on broader societal developmental objectives, can only enrich such conversations.