The rhetorical abuse of "transformation" in connection with educational technology is a ubiquitous problem. In my experience, and in their defence, in both OECD and developing world contexts, companies bidding to supply educational technology are always asked to explain how they will "transform" schools, learning or teaching. No surprise then that they do indeed try their best to do that. The UK's costly and now defunct adventure into building hundreds of new schools was predicated on the myth that technology could indeed "transform" education.
I have huge sympathy with Tanya's plea to "deiconize ICT" not just in the developing world, and have even published research on how this "iconization" happens. I have only come across one example of an educational community that was immune to this. A stunning new, award winning secondary school in Finland that had only 35 PCs in the entire building, including those used by administrative staff. When the head teacher was asked by a critical UK visitor, why their ICT provision was so poor, he didn't even understand the question.
It is that gulf of understanding: between what highly qualified, experienced, professional teachers think and what techno-zealots think, that creates the problem.