NASBE

Recommendations

Info

38 However, the acquisition of hardware is not the only infrastructure issue challenging districts’ and schools ability to effectively integrate technology into classrooms. The every-increasing need forbandwidth also challenges the education technology infrastructure of states and districts. The use of digital instructional materials, software, apps, and social media in meaningful and signifi cant ways all require varying levels of bandwidth to work effectively and seamlessly. More than ever, bandwidth is the number one limiting factor for schools that attempt to use engaging educational content and communications through the web. Almost 80 percent of schools that receive Federal E-Rate funding for broadband say their Internet connection does not fully meet their needs. 108 Almost half of the E-Rate funded schools have an Internet connection of 3 megabits per second (Mbps) or less. 109 To put this in perspective, 3 Mbps is slightly below the FCC’s recommended bandwidth for one residential household in the National Broadband Plan. 110 These speeds could barely support e-mail functionality for 10 teachers in a school, let alone provide the bandwidth for rich and engaging multimedia educational content for students. What Is E-rate and CIPA? Born in Another Time The Program of the Universal Service Fund, commonly known as E-rate, provides more than $2.25 billion annually to support schools’ and libraries’ acquisi� on of computers and connec� on of school computers to the Internet at a reduced cost. Schools receive a discount on equipment and services depending on the enrollments of free- and reduced-lunch students and whether the school is in an urban or rural se� ng. In 2000, Congress enacted the Children’s Internet Protec� on Act (CIPA) that required any school that receives E-rate funding for compu� ng to implement fi lters that block access to pictures that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors. The law also requires schools to adopt an Internet safety policy that addresses access by minors to inappropriate materials, the safety and security of minors when using e-mail and chat on E-rate funded devices, and unauthorized access by minors on these devices. In 2010, policies regarding E-rate were changed to allow schools and libraries to use these funds to bring high-speed broadband to the community and to allow communi� es to use the broadband services outside of school hours. As states con� nue developing a robust educa� on technology infrastructure, they should consider examining how districts are using E-rate funding and this provision to help bring broadband access to the Internet to the communi� es surrounding schools a� er the school day ends. Sources: U.S. Department of Educa� on, “E-Rate Program” (Washington, D.C., Last Modifi ed August 12, 2008), www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/erate.html; Federal Communica� ons Commission, “Children’s Internet Protec� on Act – FCC Consumer Facts” (Washington, D.C., Accessed July 17, 2012), transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.pdf; and Federal Communica� ons Commission, Seventh Broadband Progress Report to Congress (Washington, D.C., May 20, 2011), 8, hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-78A1.pdf. To address these issues, a number of states, including Maine and Utah, have formed public partnerships with various departments and organizations to develop costeffective broadband connections for schools across the entire state. For example, NetworkMaine is a consortium of the state department of education, library, offi ce of information technology, and university system dedicated to providing broadband connectivity to over 900 schools and libraries in the state at no cost. 111 In Utah, a partnership among education institutions and local telecommunications providers is helping connect the entire state. Almost 90 percent of K-12 schools directly or indirectly connect to the Internet via the partnership’s high-speed network that links all colleges and universities in the state. 112 These partnerships illustrate the collective capacity of public organizations to create the kind of education technology infrastructure necessary to connect students to immersive digital content that can assist in their learning. The chart on page 39 provides some common Internet activities that support student learning and the amount of bandwidth needed per user to seamlessly interact with
National Association of State Boards of Education Bandwidth Usage for Common Internet Activities that Support Student Learning Per User Email and Internet Browsing 500 Kbps Online Learning 250 Kbps HD Video Streaming 4 Mbps Video Chat for 7 or more People 8 Mbps Current Genera� on Standardized Mul� ple-Choice Online Assessments 64 Kbps/student Common Core Consor� a Assessments TBD, but almost certainly greater than 64 Kbps/student Source: Adapted from Chris� ne Fox, John Waters, Geoff Fletcher, and Douglas Levin, The Broadband Impera� ve: Recommenda� ons to Address K-12 Educa� on Infrastructure Needs (State Educa� onal Technology Directors Associa� on, Washington, DC, 2012), 21. these activities. While it might be beyond a state board of education’s authority to set bandwidth recommendations, it is important to keep these bandwidth numbers in mind when the state is developing a vision and strategy for how to use technology in education. If the vision is to provide immersive digital content that streams high quality video, there could be a disconnect between the state’s vision and the amount of bandwidth available in schools and communities to fully realize the benefi ts. Additionally, the State Education Technology Directors Association (SEDTA) notes that out-of-school access to broadband is a key factor in making education available anytime, anyplace, anywhere for students. 113 Broadband use across the country has hovered around 65 percent of households for the last few years. 114 While almost 90 percent of households with greater than $50,000 income report having access to a computer or the Internet, less than 66 percent of households under that income level report the same. 115 States need to consider and address penetration of technology in various communities as they move forward with statewide education technology initiatives. Because schools provide more and more educational resources through digital means in an on-demand fashion, it is imperative that all students have the ability to access these resources once they leave the school building. As states consider building a robust education technology infrastructure, innovative uses of E-Rate funding could help increase access to the Internet for the community. Identifying the Current Capacity of States to Integrate Technology As was discussed in the educators chapter of this report, effective integration of technology takes more than just a device for a student and a connection to the Internet. There must also be a strategy for how teachers and students interact with these technologies and provide appropriate time and training to ensure they are used in ways that maximize learning. However, for some schools in various parts of the country, there is not suffi cient education technology infrastructure to even begin having a conversation about effective uses of technology in the classroom. While there are great potential benefi ts of meaningful technology integration into the classroom, it is important that each state have an accurate assessment of the kinds of technologies being used in districts and schools across a state. To begin answering these questions, both of the main Common Core assessment consortia, Smarter Balanced and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), are providing a technology readiness tool for participating states to determine their ability to provide the online assessments being developed. 116 Results from the initial state surveys will be available in the fall of 2012, which will help evaluate where states are regarding technology and infrastructure e. 117 However, while these evaluations will be a good start to determine technology capabilities within a state, these surveys will only be focused on a school’s ability to administer the consortium assessments. Education tech- 39
Page 1: Born in Another Time Ensuring Educa
Page 4 and 5: Study Group Membership (all are mem
Page 6 and 7: 6 Summary and Recommendations “Do
Page 8 and 9: 8 mean students automatically know
Page 10 and 11: 10 the ability for districts to par
Page 12 and 13: 12 Born in Another Time 1. Addressi
Page 14 and 15: 14 teenagers still say that talking
Page 16 and 17: 16 become known as digital and/or m
Page 18 and 19: 18 of things should and should not
Page 20 and 21: 20 Chart 2. Opportunities and Chall
Page 22 and 23: 22 implementing fl exible, competen
Page 24 and 25: 24 Today’s vision of a “connect
Page 26 and 27: 26 Richard W. Riley College of Educ
Page 28 and 29: 28 VSN), which partnered with iNACO
Page 30 and 31: 30 than their veteran peers. The re
Page 32 and 33: 32 element that makes this unique,
Page 34 and 35: 34 What States Can Do? The study gr
Page 36 and 37: 36 fundamental skills and content k
Page 40 and 41: 40 Bring Your Own Device (BYOD): Op
Page 42 and 43: 42 Ten State-Level Actions to Ensur
Page 44 and 45: 44 Principles for 21st Century Inst
Page 46 and 47: 46 recovery options not typically a
Page 48 and 49: 48 Glossary Born in Another Time 1-
Page 50 and 51: 50 Born in Another Time Skype - A s
Page 52 and 53: 52 Media and Learning (April 6, 201
Page 54 and 55: 54 101. Ibid, 20. 102. Steve Berlin
Page 56: 56 The National Association of Stat

NASBE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?