cosn’s 2016 annual infrastructure survey 2 final.pdf · cosn’s 2016 annual infrastructure...

CoSN’s 2016 Annual Infrastructure Survey

In Partnership with AASA (the School Superintendents Association) and MDR

CoSN is the premier professional association for school system technology leaders and represents over ten million students nationwide. The mission of CoSN is to empower educational leaders to leverage technology to realize engaging learning environments. Visit cosn.org or call 866-267-0874 to find out more about CoSN’s focus areas, annual conference and events, advocacy and policy, membership, and the CETL™ certification exam.

AASA, The School Superintendents Association, founded in 1865, is the professional organization for more than 13,000 educational leaders in the United States and throughout the world. AASA advocates for the highest quality public education for all students, and develops and supports school system leaders.

MDR is a different kind of integrated marketing services agency with unique digital, creative, and branding capabilities. MDR leads the industry in helping clients achieve their business goals by connecting with targeted audiences through research and market intelligence, a world class database and multi-channel digital communities including WeAreTeachers, WeAreParents, School Leaders Now, Schooldata.com and EdNET.

http://www.cosn.org/

http://www.cosn.org/focus-areas

http://www.cosn.org/events

http://www.cosn.org/about/advocacy

http://www.cosn.org/about/membership

http://www.cosn.org/certification

http://www.aasa.org/

Contents

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Affordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Network Speed & Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Reliability & Lack of Competition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4. Digital Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5. Security & Cloud-Based Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CoSN’s 2016 Annual E-rate and Infrastructure Survey 4

_________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: 1 There is variability in the survey population from year to year. The 2016 CoSN/AASA survey is based on 567 responses from district administrators/technology leaders/Chief Technology Officers, and came from 48 states. Results have a +/- 4.12% reliability.

OverviewAs more and more schools are going digital, robust connectivity is essential to maximizing the advantages of new learning environments. The past few years have seen considerable change for technology in schools. Affordability, network speed, capacity, reliability and competition continue to impact internet connectivity. Cloud-based services, security and digital equity are fast becoming significant factors for education leaders and technology coordinators to consider.

In August of 2016, CoSN partnered with AASA, The School Superintendents Association and education researchers at MDR to survey school system leaders regarding the current state of broadband and technology infrastructure in U.S. school systems. The survey collected data from K-12 school district administrators and technology leaders/Chief Technology Officers across the country. Survey questions focus on the following key areas:• Affordability• Network Speed & Capacity• Reliability & Lack of Competition• Digital Equity• Cloud-Based Services• Security

Although some of these areas are new to the survey this year (cloud-based services and security), we now have trend information for many key areas over a four year period. In this rapidly changing environment, educators face increasing demand for bandwidth for many reasons, including the movement towards digital content, advent of virtual/online learning, online assessments, and the growing numbers of devices in schools.

Demographics of Survey RespondentsThe 2016 survey is based on 567 responses from district administrators/technology leaders/Chief Technology Officers, in 48 states and the District of Columbia. Survey respondents represented urban, rural, and suburban school systems as well as large, medium, and small school systems. The diversity in respondents provides data for school systems with different needs, including identifying priorities and challenges facing our schools as they transition to the digital learning environments that students need to become college, career, and life ready.

School System Student PopulationConsistent with prior year surveys, almost half of respondents (41%) are from school systems with student populations under 2,499. In 2016, 35% of survey respondents were from school systems with student populations between 2,500 and 9,999, slightly higher than 2015 (28%) and the NCES data (30%).

GeographyIn 2016, fewer survey respondents (41%) were from rural areas compared to 2015 (48%). Survey respondents from suburban areas increased from 32% to 41%. Urban district responses are similar to 2015 (19%) and are closer to the actual number of urban districts. The survey may over-represent suburban responses. That said, we believe on whole, the distribution is still similar to percentages reported by the National Center for Education Statistics and that overall findings are broadly representative.


Key Findings

As education goes digital, school system technology leaders face many challenges in planning their future education networks, especially around factors of affordability, network speed and capacity, network reliability, and a lack of competition for broadband services in too many communities. For the first time this year, survey respondents indicated that the number one factor driving the need for growth in internet bandwidth was the increased number of students with devices. Other key driving factors were growth in online assessments and digital content. Key findings are organized around the major themes of this report.

1. Affordability

For the fourth year in a row, school systems identify cost of ongoing recurring expenses as the biggest barrier to robust connectivity. In fact, this number increased from 46% in 2015 to 57% in 2016.

Interestingly, this year the monthly internet connection affordability showed significant improvement with nearly one-half of respondents — 46% today versus 36% in 2015 and 27% in 2014 —reporting low monthly costs — less than $5 per Mbps per 1,000 students.

Additional good news is that fewer school systems are paying extremely high costs (over $50/Mbps) for internet and WAN connections. From 2014 to 2016, the percentage of survey respondents that reported high monthly internet costs decreased from 32% to 16%.

However, internet affordability remains an issue in rural areas — 43% of respondents report paying monthly costs between $5 per Mbps and $49.99 per Mbps, with 23% paying extremely high costs (over $50/Mbps).

2. Network Speed & Capacity

School systems are making substantial progress towards meeting the FCC Short-Term Goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students with more than two-thirds (68%) of schools systems reporting that all the schools in their system fully meet the minimum internet bandwidth recommendations. This number climbs to 80% of school systems having three-fourths of their schools at this immediate connectivity goal. This represents a significant improvement from 19% in just four years (2013). And, this progress is equally seen across urban, rural and suburban districts. This problem still exists, however, with 9% of survey respondents reporting this year that none of the schools in their system meet the short term broadband goal.

The bigger challenge is that school systems are lagging behind in meeting the more robust FCC Long-Term Goal of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students. More than half of all school systems (54%) replied that none of their schools meet this goal today, regardless of whether you are looking at urban, suburban or rural districts. School system leaders are divided on whether the long-term goal is too ambitious or about right.

Interestingly, more than one-quarter of survey respondents (27%) project significant need for growth of internet bandwidth over the next 18 months – a whopping 100% to 499% increase. And, another 4% project extremely high need for bandwidth growth of 500% or more. These projections are consistent with bandwidth estimates from last year.

“The good news is districts are making real progress in supporting modern technology infrastructure. However, it remains clear that more work and investment are needed over the long run to address the digital equity challenge of today and provide robust broadband connectivity for all students in and outside of school.”

Keith Krueger, CEO, CoSN.


Similarly, 20% of survey respondents project significant need for growth (100% to 499%) in WAN connectivity over the next 18 months. Another 3% project extremely high need for bandwidth growth of 500% or more.

20% of survey respondents report WAP connection speeds of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students or less – far less than the 1 Gbps per 1,000 students necessary to accommodate the aggregation of all the WAP connections.

What is driving this ever increasing need for bandwidth? School systems expect dramatic increases in the number of students with multiple devices. In 2016, 21% of school systems currently report two or more devices per students and expect that will increase in just three years when nearly two-thirds (65%) of all students will use two or more devices at school.

Most survey respondents reported that they are not using commonly available tools to manage growth in bandwidth needs. In 2016, over two-thirds (71%) do not use a proxy server or WAN acceleration to manage bandwidth.

Over one-third of school systems (38%) — are still using old and outdated wireless standards (802.11 a/b/g/n). While this is a significant improvement from 2015 when 58% reported using the lower standard, it remains a serious network infrastructure problem in many schools.

One bit of optimistic news is that the vast majority (81%) of survey respondents indicated that they were very confident or somewhat confident in the wireless networks in their schools, a significant improvement since 2014 when only 54% provided that positive assessment.

3. Reliability and Lack of Competition

Network reliability issues persist with nearly four in ten (39%) survey respondents reporting unplanned internet downtime of 1 day a year – a figure that showed no improvement over the past year. Nearly one-fifth of school systems (19%) said they have 3 days of unplanned internet downtown, and 3% indicated a whopping unplanned down time of over 30 days. This is even worse is rural districts where a third (31%) had 3 days of unplanned internet downtime, and another 35% reporting 1 day a year. This impact on instructional time and business efficiencies, especially in rural schools, cannot be underestimated.

Lack of competition for broadband also remains a significant problem. For the second year in a row 46% of survey respondents report that only one provider sells internet to their school system and 30% of respondents report receiving 1 or fewer qualified proposals for broadband services in 2016 (Category 1, E-rate).

Lack of competition is magnified in rural areas. 54% of rural respondents reported that only one provider sells internet to their school system and 40% of rural respondents reported receiving 1 or fewer qualified proposals for broadband services in 2016 (Category 1, E-rate) essentially no progress from last year.

Geography limits competition in rural areas and is ranked as the second most significant barrier to increasing connectivity after recurring monthly expenses. 29% of rural respondents reported that geography is a significant barrier.

4. Digital Equity

There has been considerable attention at the national level around the need to address the so-called “homework gap” (or digital equity) where students lack access to broadband outside of school. CoSN has undertaken a major Digital Equity Action initiative www.cosn.org/digital-equity to inform education leaders about this challenge.

42% of district technology leaders rank addressing digital equity/lack of broadband outside-of-school as a very high priority (a “1” on a scale of 1 to 5, from highest to lowest priority). When asked why this issue exists, survey respondents reported that affordability (68%) was the biggest barrier to out of school access, followed by lack of available service (16%).

63% of respondents reported that they do not have any strategies for providing off-campus connectivity to students. While this is a slight improvement from 75% in 2015 and 82% in 2014, the vast majority of school systems are not yet providing leadership on digital equity. Fewer than 10% of school systems reported that all of their students have access to non-shared devices at home or in the community.

The vast majority of education leaders (84%) are not aware, or do not have a plan to educate families about the expansion of the FCC Lifeline program. Historically, Lifeline provided phone service for low-income families. In December 2016, Lifeline program rules were changed to allow low-income families to apply for these funds for home broadband access.

http://www.cosn.org/digital-equity


5. Security & Cloud-Based Services

Survey respondents reported that they are spending very little on security – nearly half spend less than 4% of their technology budget on security and 19% spend less than 1%. There is not a clear consensus on how district technology leaders believe their school is preparing for cybersecurity. 42% of respondents report that they are proactive or very pro-active in addressing school system security, while 29% say they are neither proactive nor reactive.

The largest security concern was phishing (19% cited it as a high risk), with denial of service and ransomware tied for second and third threats (9% each). Only a small number of technology leader responders were concerned about identity theft (5%) or network hacks (4%).

Phishing attacks are common — 12% of respondents encounter them daily, and another 20% on a weekly basis. To address phishing, nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents reported that they are creating an awareness campaign. Another 47% are using email security with DNS records and 32% are using a program application to address this security issue.

Two-thirds (66%) of survey respondents reported that foreign hackers are the primary attackers, followed closely by ransom hackers (42%) and then students (31%).

Cloud-Based Services

About 40% of districts are considering migrating server infrastructure to the cloud. For example, only 15% of respondents reported that they had already migrated the on premise storage and backups to the cloud and an additional 7% are planning for it in the next 12 months. The largest cloud deployments were for learning management systems (59%) and student information systems (47%).


1. AFFORDABILITY

The high cost of internet access remains the single biggest barrier to robust connectivity in schools today. For the fourth year in a row, school systems identify cost of ongoing recurring expenses as the biggest barrier to robust connectivity. Interestingly, this number increased more than 10% from 2015. Capital or up-front expenses along with lack of need are the next biggest barriers to increasing robust internet connectivity. Many other barriers seemed less significant than in past years, including up-front costs, lack of wireless in classrooms, and lack of competition due to geography.

The large increase — over one quarter (28%) of respondents — indicating lack of need merits additional research in future surveys, especially given other survey responses that project large bandwidth increases over the coming 18 months. Perhaps this is an indicator that an increasing number of district technology leaders do not currently see an immediate demand for more internet bandwidth above what they already have available.

Significant Barriers to Increasing Internet Connectivity in School Systems

In 2016, monthly internet connection affordability continued to improve over prior years’ surveys with nearly one-half of respondents (46%) reporting low monthly costs — less than $5 per Mbps. This is significant improvement from 2014 when just 27% of respondents reported low monthly internet costs. Likewise, WAN affordability also improved, with nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents reporting low costs, up by 52% last year.

In addition, fewer school systems pay extremely high costs (over $50/Mbps) for internet and WAN connections. From 2014 to 2016, the percentage of survey respondents that reported high monthly internet costs decreased from 32% to 16%. Similarly, WAN connection costs also decreased with 13% of survey respondents in 2016 reporting paying high costs compared to 22% in 2014. While this is great progress, these high costs remain a challenge for significant numbers of school systems.

Cost Per Month Internet Connection WAN Connection2016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014

No cost - $4.99/Mbps 46% 36% 27% 64% 52% 46%

$5.00 - $49.99/Mbps 37% 45% 40% 24% 30% 31%

$50.00/Mbps or more 16% 19% 32% 13% 18% 22%

In 2016, monthly internet connection affordability continued to improve over prior years’ surveys with nearly one-half of respondents (46%) reporting low monthly costs — less than $5 per Mbps.


Consortium buying can lower school system connectivity costs and was encouraged under the E-rate modernization efforts. Consortium buying advantages for school systems are described by the FCC as threefold: bulk buying reduces cost; capital expenses help build investments; and consortium expertise shares highly technical staffing. As in prior years, 45% of school systems use a consortium to file on their behalf for E-rate for bandwidth/internet access. Less common is using a consortium to file for equipment (15%), statewide backbone support (14%), transport/digital transmission (14%), and WAN circuits (11%). Consistent with prior years, almost one-third (27%) of survey respondents reported that no consortium is available for their school system.

Impact of E-Rate ModernizationWith E-rate modernization, fiber optic WAN build outs are eligible for E-rate funding on an equalized basis. In the 2016 survey, respondents reported on whether they are considering upgrading WAN to fiber optic using E-rate funds. Respondents could select multiple options. 17% indicated that they are considering upgrading using lit fiber WAN, 9% leased fiber option WAN, 8% building a dark fiber optic network and 7% building a self-provisioned network.

Also as part of E-rate modernization, the program is phasing out telephony as a covered service. For the second year in a row, the vast majority of survey respondents (84%) reported that the phase down of the plain old telephone service (POTS) significantly impacts or somewhat impacts their school system.

2. NETWORK SPEED & CAPACITY

Too many schools still lack broadband speeds today and in the near future, encounter major problems with capacity, and do not meet current industry wireless standards. While we are making progress, schools still have major “pinch points” within the network that can affect connectivity and capacity. Adequate capacity and bandwidth are critical for educators and students to utilize digital tools and resources effectively, particularly collaborative video conferencing, streaming content and online gaming that require more bandwidth. This section includes:• Schools Meeting FCC Short and Long-Term Internet Speed Goals• Projected Growth in Broadband Connectivity• Devices Driving Increased Connectivity Needs• Bandwidth Capacity• Network Equipment Components• LAN Connection • WAN Connection • Proxy Server or WAN Acceleration• Wireless Connectivity & Access Points

Schools Meeting FCC Short-Term Internet Speed GoalsSchool systems made substantial progress towards meeting the FCC Goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students with more than two-thirds (68%) of schools systems reporting that all the schools in their system fully meet the minimum internet bandwidth recommendations. This number climbs to four out of five (80%) of school systems having three-fourths of their schools at this immediate connectivity goal. The 68% fully achieving the goal today is up from just 19% in 2013. This progress is seen equally across urban, rural and suburban districts.

CoSN’s Smart Education Networks by Design (SEND) provides advice to school system leaders and identifies the following key design goals:

• Capacity: Broadband targets (Mbps/student)

• Reliability: Unplanned internet downtime

• Mobility: Multiple devices per student and teacher

• Scalability & Flexibility: Ability to scale internet access, servers, and services

• Sustainability: Adequate funding sources

• Agility: Respond to changing needs of teachers and students quickly

• Maintainability: Networks are simpler and easier to maintain and to perform optimally

http://www.cosn.org/SEND

http://www.cosn.org/SEND


This doesn’t mean that all school systems have achieved this goal and, in fact, 9% of respondents reported that none of the schools in their system can meet the short term broadband goal. Though this is a significant improvement from the 27% reported in 2014, it still remains a major national concern.

Percent of Schools in School System Meeting FCC Short-Term Goal (1 Mbps per 1,000 students)

Schools Meeting FCC Long-Term Internet Speed Goals

When asked what percent of the schools in their system have internet bandwidth to the schools that meet the FCC Long-Term national broadband goal of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students, only 15% of all school systems reported that 100% of schools met that goal. Most school systems are significantly lagging behind in meeting these more robust internal access speed goals. More than half of all school systems (54%) replied that none of their schools meet the FCC goal of 1 Gbps/1,000 students. School systems are not in agreement on this long-term goal — nearly half of all school systems (46%) state that this goal is too ambitious, yet 42% report that the long-term goal is just right. Suburban districts are most likely to say this goal is too ambitious (55% vs. 46% of all districts).

Percent of Schools in School System Meeting FCC Long-Term Goal (1 Gbps per 1,000 students)

When asked what percent of the schools in their system have internet bandwidth to the schools that meet the FCC Long-Term national broadband goal of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students, only 15% of all school systems reported that 100% of schools met that goal.


Projected Growth in Broadband Connectivity

Survey respondents continue to report the need for growth in internet and WAN connectivity. 27% of respondents projected significant growth for internet connectivity in the next 18 months – a whopping 100% to 499% increase, with 4% reporting extremely high growth of 500% or more. These numbers are slightly higher than in 2015 when 25% of respondents projected significant growth (100% and 499%) for internet. Rural districts report a slightly lower projected growth rate (19% vs. 27%).

For WAN, 20% of respondents projected significant growth for WAN connectivity in the next 18 months – 100% to 499%, with 3% reporting extremely high growth of 500% or more. These numbers are slightly higher than in 2015 when 17% of respondents projected significant growth (100% and 499%) for WAN.

Projected Growth for Connectivity for Next 18 Months

In 2016, 57% of respondents reported their school system goals for internet over the next three years to be 1 Gbps/1,000 students or higher. However, several school systems’ goals (15%) are 100 Mbps/1,000 students, significantly less than the FCC long-term goal of 1 Gbps/1,000 students.

Goal for Internet in Next Three Years(per 1,000 students)

27% of respondents projected significant growth for internet connectivity in the next 18 months – a whopping 100% to 499% increase, with 4% reporting extremely high growth of 500% or more.


Devices Driving Increased Connectivity Needs

Similar to previous surveys, the three primary factors driving the projected growth in internet bandwidth are more students with devices, online assessments, and digital content. However, student devices overtook online assessments this year as the driving force. Rural respondents also cited those as the primary factors, but ranked more students with devices third.

Driving the Need for Internet Bandwidth (#1 Rankings)

School systems expect dramatic increases in the number of students using multiple devices. Survey respondents were asked to project the number of devices used in schools on a typical day now, as well as the number of devices needed in 3 years. Currently, 37% of school systems reported one device per student compared to 28% in 2015, an increase of 9% in just one year. In 2016, 21% of school systems report two or more devices per student in use today. In three years, 65% of school systems (more than triple today) expect that students will average using two or more devices at school. It is clear that school systems need to plan for robust, ubiquitous learning environments, often with students accessing multiple devices.

For the second year in a row, school systems reported that more students have access to non-shared devices either provided by the school or through a BYOD program, with 38% of school systems reporting that 100% of students have access to non-shared devices at high school compared to 36% in middle school and 18% in elementary school. This is a significant increase from 2015 when 25% of school systems reported that 100% of students have access to non-shared devices at high school and middle school.

Student Access to Non-Shared (1:1) Devices at School

Currently, 37% of school systems reported one device per student compared to 28% in 2015, an increase of 9% in just one year. In 2016, 21% of school systems report two or more devices per student in use today. In three years, 65% of school systems (more than triple today) expect that students will average using two or more devices at school.


Bandwidth Capacity

While some school systems are making progress towards increasing internet connectivity, the majority of school systems are still far from reaching their projected growth goals to fully utilize digital tools and resources. In addition to the up-front and ongoing monthly cost of the internet, additional barriers to increasing connectivity are the internet capacity of the school system and the capacity of the internet provider(s). Capacity continues to be an issue as 12% of school systems reported that their internet providers were at capacity and could not offer additional bandwidth and another 10% reported that their own transport connection type was at capacity in both 2015 and 2016. When asked about the types of transport for WAN operation, including circuits among buildings within a school system and between the school system and the internet connection point, 69% of respondents indicated that they are using lit fiber, similar to prior years. Survey respondents reported an increase in the use of leased dark fiber (from 18% in 2015 to 22% in 2016).

Transport Types for WAN Operations

Network Equipment Components

Survey respondents reported on whether internet infrastructure components (e.g., firewall, content filter, DMZ switching, and gateway routers) required upgrades to support the FCC’s short and long-term goals. In 2016, more than half of school systems (56%) reported that they needed upgrades both in the short-term and long-term. The percentage of school systems that do not need upgrades for the short-term, but still need long-term upgrades decreased from 43% in 2015 to 26% in 2016 – fewer school systems need short-term upgrades. Presumably, many school systems have already completed infrastructure component upgrades for the short-term, but still need further upgrades to meet the long-term goals. Slightly more school systems (16%) reported that they do not need short-term or long-term upgrades.

Upgrade Options 2016 2015Yes, we need upgrades for both short-term and long-term 56% 41%No upgrades are needed for short-term, but we will need long-term upgrades 26% 43%No upgrades are needed for short-term or long-term 16% 12%Do not know 2% 4%

Capacity continues to be an issue as 12% of school systems reported that their internet providers were at capacity and could not offer additional bandwidth and another 10% reported that their own transport connection type was at capacity in both 2015 and 2016.


LAN Connection

In 2016, respondents reported current typical connection speeds between LAN switches and the core switch. Connection speeds between LAN switches and the core switch are slightly better than WAN access speeds (connections between schools). Similar to last year, 56% of respondents reported speeds of 1 Gbps/1,000 students compared to 45% for WAN access. Further, 31% of respondents reported speeds of 10 Gbps/1,000 students compared to 24% for WAN.

WAN Connection

Inadequate WAN access impacts a school system’s ability to maximize digital learning, including access to digital instructional tools and resources, as well as the ability to conduct online assessments. Similar to 2014 and 2015, 45% of school systems reported that they met the FCC’s Long-Term Goal of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students. Compared to 2015, the biggest difference in WAN access speeds was the increase in the percentage of survey respondents that reported connection speeds of 10 Gbps

per 1,000 students — 24% in 2016 compared to 15% in 2015. In 2016, 21% of survey respondents reported reaching WAN speeds of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students, continued improvement from 2015 and 2014 when 34% and 21% of survey respondents reported speeds of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students. The number of survey respondents reporting slow speeds (10 Mbps/1,000 students) decreased from 7% in 2015 to 3% in 2016.

Proxy Server or WAN Acceleration

One way of managing the ever-increasing need for bandwidth is to make smart use of proxy servers or WAN acceleration. For the first time in 2015, survey respondents were asked about their use of a caching proxy server or WAN acceleration technology. In 2016, the results are virtually the same as in 2015. The majority of school systems (71%) do not use a proxy server or WAN acceleration. Only 17% of survey respondents indicated that they use proxy servers, 3% reported using WAN acceleration, and another 3% reported using both.

Proxy Servers or WAN Acceleration 2016 2015

Use proxy servers 17% 20%

Use WAN acceleration 3% 3%

Use both 3% 3%

Do not use either proxy servers or WAN acceleration 71% 69%

Do not know 7% 5%

Typical Connection Speed Between LANSwitches and the Core Switch

WAN Connection

Compared to 2015, the biggest difference in WAN access speeds was the increase in the percentage of survey respondents that reported connection speeds of 10 Gbps per 1,000 students — 24% in 2016 compared to 15% in 2015.


Wireless Connectivity & Access Points

As more students are using devices in the classroom and often times multiple devices, robust wireless is essential, and a basic connection to a classroom is not sufficient. Tremendous progress has been made in providing wireless access over recent years. Only 6% of respondents indicated their high schools don’t have wireless.

However, the growing issue is the capacity of wireless to handle student demand. While wireless is now ubiquitous, only one-third (33%) of high schools (and less for middle and elementary schools) have the capacity for students to have multiple devices (another 28% report having wireless capacity for one device per student).

Existing Wireless Connectivity

Recent improvements in wireless standards have accelerated the obsolescence of some school systems’ wireless infrastructure. When asked about the predominant wireless standard for classrooms, 38% of the school systems reported that they are using old and

Current Standard for Majority of WAP in Network

outdated wireless speeds (802.11 a/b/g/n). This is a significant improvement from 2015 when 58% reported using this standard, yet that means that many classrooms still have big challenges. Because new devices come with the newer ac standard, 57% of the school systems indicated that they were able to accommodate the wireless standard, 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac—an improve-ment of 24% in one year.

Over the last three years, respondents were asked how confident they are that

the current wireless networks in their schools have the capacity to handle one device per student or more. In 2016, 81% of survey respondents indicated that they were very confident or somewhat confident, a significant improvement since 2014.

Connection Speed between Wireless Access Points and Switch

The internal school backbone, connection speed between a wireless access point (WAP) and a switch, should be at least 1 Gbps per 1,000 students to accommodate the aggregation of all the WAP connections. Survey respondents reported a typical connection speed between a WAP and the LAN switch. In 2016, 71% of survey respondents reported the typical connection speed of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students compared to 63% in 2015 and 54% in 2014. While school systems continue to make progress, there are

Tremendous progress has been made in providing wireless access over recent years. Only 1% of respondents indicated their high schools don’t have wireless.


still nearly 20% of survey respondents reporting WAP connection speeds of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students or less – far less than the 1 Gbps per 1,000 students necessary to accommodate the aggregation of all the WAP connections.

3. RELIABILITY & LACK OF COMPETITION

School systems often struggle to achieve reliable internet connectivity. Since 2014, survey results show slightly better results for unplanned internet downtime. Respondents reporting internet downtime of 3 days per year decreased from 29% to 19% and unplanned internet downtime of 1 day per year remained virtually the same over the past three years at 39%. Unfortunately, 3% of school system survey respondents reported unplanned internet downtime of 30 days or more per year. This problem of network reliability is dramatically worse in rural school districts. A third (31%) had 3 days of unplanned internet downtime, and another 35% reporting 1 day a year. Without reliable internet, educators cannot adequately integrate digital tools and resources into teaching and learning.

There continues to be a lack of competition among internet providers. In 2014, 60% of schools systems reported being in this difficult situation with only one provider selling internet bandwidth to the school system. That number dropped to 46% in 2015 yet stalled at same level in 2016. This problem is especially true for rural school systems and no progress is being made — 54% of rural respondents reported being in this difficult situation in 2016 and 2015.

Given the lack of internet providers in some areas, it is not surprising that 30% of school systems reported receiving 1 or fewer qualified proposals for broadband services in 2016 (Category 1, E-rate). There was no improvement in 2016 after slight improvement in 2014.

This lack of competition among qualified internet providers is amplified in the rural areas, with 40% of rural survey respondents indicating that they received 1 or fewer proposals for E-rate services, essentially the same as the 2015 data (38%). Geography is a significant barrier to increasing connectivity — 29% of rural respondents reported that geography limits competition.

4. DIGITAL EQUITY

With the increase in the use of digital instructional materials and resources, students without access to a device outside of school are a disadvantage – furthering the digital equity gap. Consistent with 2015, less than 10% of school systems reported that 100% of students have access to non-shared devices at home or in the community. In 2016, 41% of school systems reported that a large percentage (75%-99%) of students have access to the internet through shared devices at home compared to 31% last year.

Student Access to the Internet

Digital Equity

There has been considerable attention at the national level around the need to address the so-called “homework gap” (or digital equity) where students lack access to broadband outside of school. CoSN has undertaken a major Digital Equity Action initiative www.cosn.org/digital-equity to inform education leaders about this challenge.




Starting 2016, schools systems were asked to rate how important it is to address digital equity/lack of broadband outside of school (both in the community and at home) for learning. 42% of district technology leaders rank addressing digital equity/lack of broadband outside of school as a very high priority (a “1” on a scale of 1 to 5, from highest to lowest priority). When asked why this issue exists, survey respondents reported that affordability (68%) was one of the biggest barriers to out of school access, followed by lack of available service (16%).

63% of respondents reported that they do not have any strategies for providing off-campus connectivity to students. While this is a slight improvement from 75% in 2015 and 82% in 2014, the vast majority of school systems are not yet providing leadership on digital equity. Fewer than 10% of school systems reported that all of their students have access to non-shared devices at home or in the community.

The vast majority of school system leaders (84%) are not aware or do not have a plan to educate families about the expansion of the FCC Lifeline program. Historically, Lifeline provided phone service for low-income families. Starting in December 2016, low-income families can apply for these funds for home broadband access. Though most educators may not be aware of this change, this brings is a new opportunity to bridge the “homework gap” as school systems, if they are aware of the details of the program, could inform eligible families.

5. SECURITY & CLOUD-BASED SERVICES

For the first time in 2016, the survey presents findings related to a series of security questions. Less than one-third (27%) of survey respondents reported that they have a dedicated network security person. Survey respondents reported they are spending very little on security – nearly half spend less than 4% of their technology budget on security and of those, 19% spend less than 1%.

Technology Budget Allocated for Security

There is not a clear consensus on how district technology leaders believe their school system is preparing for cybersecurity. 42% of respondents report that they are proactive or very pro-active in addressing school system security, while 29% say they are neither proactive nor reactive.

The largest security concern was phishing (19% cited it as a high risk), with denial of service and

ransomware tied for second (9% each). Only a small number of technology leader responders were concerned about identity theft (5%) or network hacks (4%). Phishing attacks are common — 12% of respondents encounter them daily, and another 20% on a weekly basis. To address phishing, nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents reported that they are creating an awareness campaign. Another 47% are using email security with DNS records and 32% are using a program application to address this security issue. Two-thirds (66%) of survey respondents reported that foreign hackers are the primary attackers, followed closely by ransom hackers (42%) and then students (31%).

Starting in December 2016, low-income families can apply for LifeLine funds for home broadband access. While it makes sense that most educators may not be aware of this change, there is a new opportunity to bridge the “homework gap” and school systems could inform eligible families, if they are aware of the details of the program. Starting in December 2016, low-income families can apply for these funds [Lifeline] for home broadband access.


Cloud-Based Services

For the first time in 2016, the survey presents findings related to cloud-based services. While only 6% of respondents reported that they have already migrated server infrastructure to the cloud, nearly one third of school systems expect to do so over the coming three to five years.

While 15% of respondents reported that they had already migrated the on-premise storage and backups to the cloud, an additional 12% plan to over the next one to two years.

Respondents were also asked about the types of services they have already moved to the cloud or plan to move to the cloud. Survey respondents identified learning management systems and student information systems — 59% and 47%, respectively — as the primary types of services moved to the cloud. Additional services include storage (34%), financial systems (32%) and human resources (27%).

Services Moved or Plan to Move to the Cloud

Migrating Server to the Cloud

Migrating On-Premise Storage and Backups to the Cloud

While only 6% of respondents reported that they have already migrated server infrastructure to the cloud, nearly one third of school systems expect to do so over the coming three to five years.


SummarySchool system technology leaders face many challenges in planning their future education networks, especially around factors of affordability, network speed and capacity, reliability and a lack of competition. This year, the survey also examined security and cloud-based services. Digital equity – out of school access for students — persists as a national issue.

Affordability: For the fourth year in a row, school systems identify cost of ongoing recurring expenses as the biggest barrier to robust connectivity. In fact, this number increased from 46% in 2015 to 57% in 2016. On a positive note, fewer school systems are paying extremely high costs (over $50/Mbps) for internet and WAN connections. However, extremely high monthly costs remain an issue in rural areas — 23% paying extremely high costs (over $50/Mbps).

Network Speed & Capacity: School systems are making substantial progress towards meeting the FCC Short-Term Goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students with more than two-thirds (68%) of schools systems reporting that all the schools in their system fully meet the minimum internet bandwidth recommendations. This represents a significant improvement from 19% in just four years (2013). The bigger challenge is that school systems are lagging behind in meeting the more robust FCC Long-Term Goal of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students. More than half of all school systems (54%) replied that none of their schools meet this goal today. Additionally, technology leaders continue to project significant need for growth in connectivity over the next 18 months — a whopping 100% to 499% increase cited by 27% for internet bandwidth and 20% for WAN connections. What is driving this ever increasing need for bandwidth? School systems expect dramatic increases in the number of students with multiple devices — in three years two-thirds of all students will use two or more devices at school. Confidence in wireless networks improved with 8 out of 10 respondents indicating that they were very confident or somewhat confident in the wireless networks in their schools.

Reliability and Lack of Competition: Network reliability issues persist with nearly four in ten (39%) survey respondents reporting unplanned internet downtime of 1 day a year – a figure that showed no improvement over the past year. This impact on instructional time and business efficiencies cannot be underestimated. Lack of competition for broadband also remains a significant problem. For the second year in a row 46% of survey respondents report that only one provider sells internet to their school system. This is magnified in rural areas — 54% of rural respondents report that only one provider sells internet to their school.

Digital Equity: There has been considerable attention at the national level around the need to address the “homework gap” (or digital equity) where students lack access to broadband outside of school. Although 75% of technology leaders indicate that addressing digital equity (lack of broadband outside-of-school) is very important or important, most school systems are not yet providing leadership on digital equity. Nearly two-thirds report that they do not have any strategies for providing off-campus connectivity to students and the vast majority of education leaders are not aware or do not have a plan to educate families about the expansion of the FCC Lifeline program.

Security and Cloud-Based Services: Survey respondents reported that they are spending very little on security – nearly half spend less than 4% of their technology budget on security and of those, 19% spend less than 1%. Technology leaders (19%) cited phishing as a high risk security concern and 9% cited denial of service and ransomware as threats. Phishing attacks are common — 20% occur on a weekly basis. To address phishing, nearly two-thirds of respondents reported that they are creating an awareness campaign. Nearly one-half are using email security with DNS records and 32% are using a program application to address this security issue. This year respondents reported on cloud-based services — 40% of school systems are considering migrating server infrastructure to the cloud. The largest cloud deployments were for learning management systems (59%) and student information systems (47%).

Permission is granted under a Creative Commons Attribution + Non-commercialLicense to replicate copy, distribute, and transmit this Report for non-commercialpurposes with Attribution given to CoSN.

© 2016, Consortium for School Networking (CoSN).

Consortium for School Networking1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 110Washington, DC 20005

[email protected]

cosn’s 2016 annual infrastructure survey 2 final.pdf · cosn’s 2016 annual infrastructure...

Documents