E-Rate 2.0: Defining Drivers and Capacity Needs

• Susan Patrick, iNACOL• Jennifer Davis, CCSSO Innovation Lab Network• Evan Marwell, Education SuperHighway• Susan Van Gundy, Achieve/PARCC

August 6, 2013

www.inacol.org

Welcome & Introductions

Susan PatrickPresident & CEO, iNACOL

Susan PatrickPresident and CEO, iNACOL

Susan Van GundyAssociate Director for Assessment

Technology, Achieve / PARCC

Panelists

Evan MarwellCEO & Co-Founder, Education SuperHighway

Jennifer DavisProgram Director, CCSSO Innovation Lab Network

About iNACOL• Premier K-12 nonprofit in online learning dedicated to an important

student-centric mission: that all students have access to a world-class education and quality blended and online learning opportunities that prepare them for a lifetime of success.

• Leadership, advocacy, research, PD, quality standards, training, and networking with experts in K-12blended and online learning.– 4400+ members in K-12 blended and online learning in over 50

countries– Annual conference – iNACOL Blended and Online Learning

Symposium: Orlando, FL in October 28-30, 2013• Our strategic areas of focus in online and blended learning:

1. Policy

2. Quality

3. New Learning Models

iNACOL/CCSSO E-rate Webinars: to empower & inform education

advocates

7/25

• E-rate 101: Basics for Education Advocates

Today

• E-rate 2.0: Defining Drivers and Capacity Needs

SAVE THE DATE! 8/20 4-5 pm ET

• ConnectED and E-rate: Q&A with FCC and Dept of Education officials

New Solutions through Online Learning

• 40% of US high schools do not offer AP courses– 75% of districts use online learning to offer Advanced

Placement or college-level courses.

• Teacher Shortages– 40% of public school districts in America today say they

need online learning resources because certified teachers are not available for traditional face-to-face instruction.

• More than 50% need online learning to reduce student scheduling conflicts to graduate on time.

• 60% of school districts say they need online learning for credit recovery.

Trends

• Change toward New Models of Learning– Online learning– Blended learning– Competency-based approaches– Online credit recovery– Mobile learning

• National: – CCSSO Innovation Lab Network– Gates Foundation’s Next Generation Learning Challenges

• Wave IV Personalized, Blended, Mastery-based New School Models

www.inacol.org

Source: Susan Patrick, iNACOL

• Ensure Full Access to Broadband Internet Infrastructure• Build out broadband connectivity with needs of digital content

resources, and online assessments to enable student-centered, personalized, blended and online learning – accessible anytime, anywhere at school and at home.

Top Policy Issue

Where we are now

• FCC launched update of E-Rate on 7/19/2013

• Comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking due 9/16/13

www.inacol.org

Questions?

Jennifer Davis

Director, Innovation Lab Network

Council of Chief State School Officers

August 6, 2013

E-Rate 2.0: Defining Drivers and

Capacity Needs

A new “North Star”…

College and career readiness for all students

…drives education system transformation…

Personalized, mastery-based learningAnytime, anywhere learningComputer adaptive assessmentReal-time data collection and reporting

…with new requirements for technology and connectivity

HardwareSoftwareHigh-speed internet

Examples

2014 assessments Innovation

CCSSO Innovation Lab Network

17

9 states taking collective action to identify, test and scale student-centered approaches to learning that advance:

1. World-class knowledge and skills

2. Performance-based learning

3. Personalized learning

4. Comprehensive systems of learning

supports

5. Anytime, everywhere opportunities

6. Student agency

CCSSO Innovation Lab Network (cont’d)

Schools and districts in ILN states come together to advance new and innovative practices aligned to the 6 critical attributes

States across the ILN come together to share lessons learned and advance policies and practices to support and scale innovation

CCSSO facilitates collaboration and communication among ILN states and with a broader audience, and provides leadership and/or support as states move forward

ILN Excerpt #1

“Student learning is individualized in a variety of ways in our district.  Our middle school is the most sophisticated with these practices with the establishment of both Math and Literacy Centers in which 100% of 7th and 8th graders experience learning in a personalized manner.  The Math Learning Centers utilize ALEKS as a tool along with a large group setting with multiple teachers and staff, structured around regular student goal setting and conferencing.  Students move at a pace commensurate with their ability to learn the content and skills.  Teachers monitor frequently and incorporate mini or small group lessons strategically based on student progress.  The Literacy Center works in a similar manner using Google Apps and online teacher developed rubrics for ongoing feedback.  Teachers work in teams and share the responsibility of helping all students grow.”

ILN Excerpt #2

“A teacher came to me wondering how she could make her reading assessment available online. I helped her create student Google Sites, Blogger, an Audioboo and a Google form. I attached students’ Audioboo accounts to their Blogger and embedded their Blogger into their Google Site. The site layout was a two column layout. In one column was the Blogger and in the other I embedded the Google form. Now when students use the Audioboo app on their iTouch, Smartphone, iPad, etc, to read a paragraph, the ‘boo’ is quickly posted to the blog where the teacher, the student, or other students can listen to the ‘boo’ and complete the form. The teacher now can hear the student progression throughout the year as well as see how students rate themselves and others on the individual’s progression.”

ILN Excerpt #3

“We are in the process of a 1:1 iPad roll out.  In our PD we have stressed how technology supports  learning but our focus is on personalization and preparing students for -career and -college readiness.  Recently in a 1,2,3 multiage NxGL classroom, some students were gathered in a corner discussing a problem they were solving in math.  A first grade student pulled out her iPad, snapped a photo of some of the data they were discussing and then invited her group to another remote location of the room.  She proceeded to show the group, which contained several older students,  how they could pull the data up on Skitch (a free app) and mark it up to collaborate over the data while working to solve their problem.  This without any teacher direction!  This student demonstrated her understanding of how technology can facilitate learning and allowed them to opportunity to move “anywhere” and mark and remix the data to make it their own.”

Recent state-level movement

California – Piloting Education Technology Task Force recommendations

Iowa – Creating a statewide plan for digital learning

Kentucky – Developing next-generation Open Educational Resources linked to the Common Core for broad distribution

Maine – Exploring expanded access to online courses, simulations, video resources

New Hampshire – Exploring open-source data systems and other digital platforms to support competency-based education system

Wisconsin – Implementing statewide learning management system

CCSSO Digital Learning Task Force

CCSSO recently launched a chiefs’ Digital Learning Task Force to engage federal policymakers in support of improved digital learning opportunities for all students.

This task force, co-chaired by Tom Luna from Idaho and Tom Torlakson from California, seeks as its first objective to inform the FCC rulemaking process that would improve and expand the E-Rate program.

The task force will advise upon: Appropriate targets for E-Rate success Metrics to define E-Rate success States role in E-Rate program administration.

Our Imperitive

We must eliminate the “digital divide” in public schools to ensure that all students have access to 21st century learning opportunities.

Questions or comments

Jennifer Davis

Director, Innovation Lab Network

jenniferd@ccsso.org

www.inacol.org

Questions?

iNACOL / CCSSO E-Rate WebinarEvan Marwell, CEO & Co-Founder

August 6, 2013

Confidential

EducationSuperHighway

EducationSuperHighway 28

Identify Schools Requiring Upgrades

Help Districts Create Upgrade

Plans

Lower the Cost of Connectivity & Equipment

Support E-Rate Modernization

Network Snapshot Internet Pricing Portal

E-Rate 2.0

Mission: Upgrade the Internet infrastructure of every K-12 public school in America for digital learning

America’s Leading Non-Profit for K-12 Internet Infrastructure

Confidential

K-12 Networks: Best Efforts => Mission Critical

Administrators Teachers Students0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1.6 3.3

55

Potential Users on K-12 Networks

Mill

ions

of U

sers

Confidential

Digital Learning Requires 100Mbps+

EducationSuperHighway 30

ConnectED Goal = 1 Gigabit / School

Confidential

Teachers Waiting for Robust Infrastructure

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%0

20

40

60

80

100

120

31

45

77

105

Average Bandwidth By Utilization Quartile

Bandwidth Utilization

Avai

labl

e Ba

ndw

idth

(Kbp

s/st

uden

t)

Confidential

State of the Nation

Source: EducationSuperHighway National SchoolSpeedTest – Interim Results as of 6-20-13Assessment Readiness Based on SBAC Standard (Basic = 20K bps/student; Media Rich = 50 Kbps/student)Digital Learning Readiness Based on SETDA Standard

Not Ready F

or Asse

ssment

Ready For B

asic Asse

ssment

Ready For M

edia Rich Asse

ssment

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45% 42%

31%27%

Assessment Readiness

Not Ready For Digital Learning

Ready For Digital Learning (2013)

Ready For Digital Learning (2017)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

77%

23%

1%

Digital Learning Readiness

Confidential

K-12 Networks – Connectivity + Wi-Fi

EducationSuperHighway 33

Confidential

E-Rate Priority 1 Spending

Data Network Telephony Mobile Application Services

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

58%

33%

6% 3%

E-Rate Spending by Category

Source: EducationSuperHighway preliminary Form 471 Item 21 Analysis

Confidential

E-Rate P1 Spending – Data Network

Internet Access WAN0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

22%

78%

Percentage of Annual Data Network Cost

Confidential

Current

Required 2013

Required 2017

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2.5 5.5

55

K-12 Bandwidth Usage

Tota

l K-1

2 U

sage

(Ter

abits

)

Current Required 2013

Required 2017

0123456789

10

1.2

2.65

9.25

K-12 Bandwidth Cost

Tota

l K-1

2 Co

st ($

Bill

ions

)

E-Rate

Note: 2017 cost assumes 67% decrease in cost / megabitSource: EducationSuperHighway estimates, SETDA

E-Rate Will Be 5x Oversubscribed by 2017

Confidential

Dark Fiber Transforms Bandwidth Costs

Median Sc

hool

"Best

Practi

ce" L

eased

Dark Fib

er Lease

d

Dark Fib

er Owned

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45 $40.00

$6.15

$0.69 $0.08

Cost Per Megabit

Median Sc

hool

"Best

Practi

ce" L

eased

Dark Fib

er Lease

d

Dark Fib

er Owned

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

21 159 1,419

12,237

Megabits Per School*

Confidential

E-Rate Modernization Objectives

• Update goals to focus on Internet infrastructure

– Priority One = Internet access, WAN, LAN & Wi-Fi– Priority Two = Telephony, Mobile, Application Services

• Fund one time capital investment to connect schools to dark fiber and deploy ubiquitous wireless networks

• Create incentives for pooled purchasing & cost savings

• Increase transparency & accountability

– Web based Form 471 Item 21 data entry portal– Automated bandwidth monitoring

• Simplify the E-Rate application process

EducationSuperHighway 38

www.inacol.org

Questions?

Technology and Common Core Assessments

Susan Van Gundy

Associate Director for Assessment Technology

Achieve40

What Is PARCC?

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers: Made up of 20 states Developing common, high-quality

math and English language arts (ELA) tests for grades 3–11Computer-based and linked to what students need to know

for college and careers For use starting in the 2014–15 school year

41

Available Now: PARCC Item PrototypesAvailable Now: Technology Readiness ToolAvailable Now: Capacity Planning ToolAvailable Now: Accessibility/Accommodations ManualSummer 2013: Item Try Outs and Research StudiesFall 2013: Additional Prototypes ReleasedWinter 2013: System Check Tools OpenSpring 2014: Field TestSpring 2014: Practice Test AvailableSchool Year 2014-2015: First Operational Assessment

PARCC Timeline

Assessment DesignELA/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3–11

43

Beginning of School Year

End of School Year

DiagnosticAssessment

Mid-Year Assessment

Performance-Based

Assessment

End-of-Year Assessment

Speaking and Listening

Assessment

Optional Required

Key:

Flexible administration

Assessment ShiftsPARCC Assessment Technology Shifts From ToScale Individual state tests Multistate consortia sharing common tests, common

infrastructure, and economies of scale.

Content Low complexity items and task response modes.

Cognitively complex tasks that leverage use of multimedia, interactivity, authentic tasks, multi-part, simulations – and address traditionally difficult to assess skills within the Common Core.

Delivery - Once a year- Paper and pencil

Computer-based assessment system including summative, mid-year, diagnostic components + curricular and professional development resources.

Scoring & Reporting

- End of year- Decontextualized- High Level

- Data to inform instruction- Contextualized to CCSS - More granular feedback

Data Student responses - Responses, interactions, patterns to improve assessments- Data for state longitudinal systems- Results will be interpretable across states (for example

when a student moves from one state to another)

Infrastructure - Procured services- State-specific

- Common consortium infrastructure- Scalable, flexible, extensible

Interoperability Virtually none Common standardized formats for results data, items, and student registration allow interoperability across states and across technical components.

Some examples include: Text to Speech Speech to Text Magnification / Zoom Highlighting Customized colors Masking Graphic organizers or

representations

Captions for audio and video Descriptive video Native language

supports/tools Braille (tactile/refreshable) Signing supports (ASL) Assistive technologies

Accessibility Features and Accommodations

45

School Technology Readiness

TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

• Devices and Networks• Bandwidth• Accessibility• Security• Interoperability• Data Storage and Reporting• Tech Support• User Training• Systems Testing

LEARNING INFRASTRUCTURE

• Standards• Curriculum• Pedagogy• Instructional Materials• Opportunity to Learn• Professional Development• Formative and Summative

Assessments• Data Analysis

46

PARCC Technology

Specifications

Desktops, Laptops, Tablets, Thin Client/VDI

Minimum Recommended

Operating System

Windows XP–SP3 (with caveats)Mac OS 10.5Linux: Ubuntu 9-10, Fedora 6iOS6Android 4.0Chrome OS

Windows 7 or newerMac OS 10.7 or newerLinux: Ubuntu 11.10, Fedora 16iOS6 or newerAndroid 4.0 or newerChrome OS

Memory By operating system 1 GB RAM

Processor By operating system 1 GHz

Screen Size 9.5 “ 9.5 “ or larger

Screen Resolution

1024 x 768 1024 x 768 or better

Bandwidth 5 kbps/ studentusing local caching

100 kbps/ studentto support instruction and assessment

Technology Readiness Tool Goals• Assist states and districts in evaluating their own readiness

and creating specific strategies to address local needs

• Inventory baseline level of technology and supporting infrastructure currently residing in schools

• Data to inform for technical platform architecture and assessment designs

• All states are defining and evaluating readiness in same way

Smarter Balanced – PARCC – SETDATechnology Readiness Tool

48

State & Local Participation

• State Readiness Coordinators (SRCs)• Serve as primary point of contact for working with Pearson

and the consortia• Communicate regularly to Local Educational Agencies

(LEAs) including technology personnel• Facilitate training of LEA technology personnel • Answer questions from LEA personnel

• LEA Staff• Upload or enter data for each school• Communicate when they are “finished” with data

entry for a particular readiness assessment window49

Data Collection Parameters

Data Collection Parameters

Parameter Collection Method

Device Specifications Readiness

Operating System AutoProcessor

(Type/Speed/Capacity)Auto

Memory AutoResolution AutoMonitor/Display size SurveySupported Browsers AutoWireless connectivity SurveyType of Device Survey

Device-to-Tester Readiness

Number of devices CalculationNumber of testers SurveyLength of testing window in school days

Survey

Number of sessions/day SurveyRatio of

devices/testers/sessionsCalculation

ParameterCollection Method

Network Infrastructure Readiness

Estimated Internet Bandwidth Available

Survey

Estimated Maximum Network Speed

Survey

Estimated Network Utilization Survey

Number of wireless access points/school

Survey

Ratio: wireless devices to access points/school

Calculation

Maximum number of simultaneous testers

Survey

Available bandwidth for maximum number of testers

Calculation

Staff & Personnel Readiness

Survey Question: Categories of Concerns/Problems

Survey

50 Not Available in First Data Collection

Getting Results

• Reports will be available for the different dimensions

51

SAMPLE DATA

• Technology Strategy for Instruction and Assessment

• Clear, Consistent, and Intentional Planning • State Leadership and Support• Intra-State Education Agency Coordination • Clear and Ongoing Communications• Network Analysis at the Local Level• Recognition That One Size Does Not Fit All

52

Key Lessons – Successful Planning Involves…

Devices• Most machines meet or exceed consortia minimums, many

meet recommended specifications (except operating system)• Windows XP still dominant operating system• Windows > Mac > Chrome > Linux > iOS > Android• Tablet segment is growing• Wireless vs. Wired almost even• Very little BYOD reported

June 2013 Snapshot – PARCC + SBAC Trends7.9 million devices reported72,000 schools / 14,000 districts

Networks• Network speeds and utilization estimates are difficult for

schools to report (32% of responses reported no network data)

• Local environment considerations need to be calculated at a finer grain size to be meaningful (network configuration, peak load speeds, wired vs. wireless, simultaneous non-assessment usage, simultaneous test takers)

Staffing• Largest concerns are around (1) having adequate IT staffing

levels and (2) proctors having sufficient technical training to administer tests

June 2013 Snapshot – PARCC + SBAC Trends7.9 million devices reported72,000 schools / 14,000 districts

www.inacol.org

Q&A

www.inacol.org

Thank you!Follow up questions about this webinar?

Contact:

Maria Worthen

Vice President for Federal & State Policy, iNACOL

mworthen@inacol.org