Academics and educators point out the obvious – broadband by itself won’t do much if anything to improve schools and hospitals – it depends what you do with it. Or that is where this BBC story begins – it quickly gets distracted by more prosaic issues of training and difficulties in arranging timetables around broadband education…
In reality the big question mark in my view is still more fundamental – broadband may be able to deliver more educational material in theory but does the material exist? Can it be integrated in the curriculum? Do teachers understand what it does (and doesn’t do)? Does the material provide the chance for real interactive learning or just a narrow set of branches towards a pre-programmed goal?
Similarly, broadband can only help doctors if they do perceive it as a benefit and rely on it.
I am very dubious about the repetition in this piece (and presumably in the thinking of some in the policy arena) about the importance of videoconferencing. Broadband does enable limited videoconferencing but is this really something valuable or would messageboards or mailing lists and other forms of communication (still helped by broadband) be more useful?
