I don't know whether this is general knowledge or not, but questions like this have empirical answers.
We can look at how well providing children with a certain kind of primary educations fairs against providing children with a laptop as an intervention on aggregate.
Sure, the project may have found that teaching children 'stuff' isn't that useful, but are laptops consistently useful either? Just the other day my laptop kicked the bucket and I lost a bunch of data. Now, my remaining laptop doesn't have a working headphone jack for me to listen to lectures. And, the keys are broken. I can certainly gain more from a new laptop than more formal education. But, that's just an anecdote. It's not as evidence-based as answers to this class of question can be when making decisions about optimal philanthropy.
Just read this article, which describes a splashy, interesting narrative which jives nicely with my worldview. Which makes me suspicious.
http://dvice.com/archives/2012/10/ethiopian-kids.php
So this sounds really inspiring and stuff, even subtracting some obviously sensational stuff (I assume "hacked Android" means "opened up the preferences dialog and flicked a switch"). I've poked around a bit and found similarly fluffy pop-philanthropy articles. Anyone know if there's more reliable information about this out there?