Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why that is? Most people I know who have anything like a computer background from school learned the standard MS Office suite; they then went on to jobs where those skills were useful because their companies also used the MS Office suite. What's the advantage of teaching fundamentals using software the student is less likely to see again?
It's a catch 22 lock-in perpetuated by MS. It should be broken and education system is as good place as any to do it. MS hooked everyone on it, and arguments like "what's the advantage of not being hooked on it, since everyone is" aren't helping. Luckily some actually get it and use Linux in schools. But in my experience it's not common (in higher education chances are better).
I think the "it" some "get" is not seen as a necessary "it" for the purposes of education, and "Using closed stuff for education is a bad idea" is begging the question.
Linux is 25 years old now. The GPL is older than that. The ecosystem around them has had plenty of time to prove its worth as a superior solution for educational tools; it mostly wallows around in a sea of mutually-incompatible "maybe-we-could" and "what-if-we-tried" initiatives without the kind of clout behind them that make institutions believe the solution's providers will be around in five years and the institution won't be stuck owning 100% of the tool they don't really want to support. It turns out most educators and students would rather have a working solution guaranteed by someone with money in the game than a tool they can fully modify, evidence seems to suggest. The advantage to the MS ecosystem is that when it doesn't work, you can take it to multiple independent companies who will fix it for you.