June 2014 Developed by Ann Watson EdNET Insight Senior Analyst for Meru Networks About This Report MDR s EdNet Insight Service conducted this survey of district and schoollevel leaders on behalf of Meru Networks Inc., in the spring of 2014. MDR is the leading provider of education marketing information and services in the United States. MDR s EdNET Insight is the K 12 education industry s premier information and consulting service, combining proven research and analysis with recognized industry experts to deliver an insightful, comprehensive view of the trends and influences that are shaping the education market today and tomorrow. For more information on EdNET Insight, go to http://www.schooldata.com/mdrednetinsight.asp. Developed by
Purpose of Survey Meru Networks wants to conduct quantitative research with a national sample of K-12 educators. Meru Networks will use the results of this study to help create a white paper (or similar document) in a manner that positions Meru Networks as a thought leader in the K-12 industry. The short-term goal is to distribute the resulting document at ISTE in late June. On 4/28/14, survey invitations were deployed to the selected audience and a follow-up reminder was sent a total of three times. The survey link was provided to Meru to facilitate the company sending an email message (including the survey link) to individuals on an in-house file. The response rate was lower than expected with a high of 63 and a low of 57 which we believe is due to timing (i.e. end of the school year) and the job titles selected (i.e. high-level district administrators are less responsive than school-level educators.) The largest group of respondents was: School Technology Coordinators, followed by Network System Administrators, Assistant Superintendents, and the rest of the positions to a lesser degree. The percentage breakdown is as follows: School Technology Coordinators 48% Network System 21% Assistant Superintendents 11% Instructional Media Services Directors 9% Instructional Technology Directors 9% Information Technology Directors 2% Superintendents 0% The job titles selected for the survey were those known to be decision makers within the district, and those involved in Wi-Fi, mobile technology and BYOD. Data were gathered, compiled, and quantitatively analyzed by MDR. Additional analysis is provided in this report by Ann Watson, EdNET Insight Senior Analyst. The complete survey along with cross tab results accompanies this analysis. The focus of this analysis is to highlight key results, offer important findings, and outline additional opportunities. 2
Question Analysis The grade levels served by the respondents were evenly divided between the three levels. The high school level was represented by a slightly smaller percentage; however the three levels are close to even thirds. The other categories mentioned were: district wide, K-12, district level, PreK-12, PreK- 3, and board of education staff. Below is a graph illustrating the differing grade levels for which the respondents are responsible. Mobile Devices When asked the question, do you provide mobile devices to students for use at home and in school, the majority of the respondents said No in all three levels. As the students got older the number of Yes responses increased. Therefore, the elementary schools were less likely to provide these mobile devices than the high schools. The percentage more than doubled when you compared the number of schools/districts that provided devices for their students when moving from the elementary grades to the middle grades. This is consistent with other national studies that have been conducted. The graph below illustrates the grade level of students who were provided with mobile devices. 3
A report by Project Tomorrow, The New Digital Playback: Understanding the Spectrum of Students, Activities & Aspirations contains findings from a poll of 3.4 million students, teachers, administrators and parents. The report, as recently featured in T.H.E. Journal in April, 2014, revealed that 1/3 of U.S. students use school- issued mobile devices. Virtually all middle (73%) and high school (89%) students have access to smart phones. Included in those mobile devices for middle/high school work were: 66% of both groups have access to laptops, 61% and 50% respectively to tablets, and one-half to digital readers. In grades 3-5, 50% have access to smartphones, 62% have access to laptops, 58% to tablets and far fewer (39%) to digital readers. In the very early grades of K-2, one in five (21%) have access to smartphones, 41% have access to laptops and/or tablets and only 18% to digital readers. This study shows similar trending as the found in the Meru Networks survey. In the EdNET Insight State of the K-12 Market 2013 report, a question was asked: Please indicate the percentage of students with full-time access to mobile computing devices in the elementary, middle, and high schools in your district. Shown below is the penetration rate for schools that are providing at least 3/4ths of their students with that level of access. While only 1 in 10 Elementary schools have that high level of access, the same is true for more than 1 in 5 high schools. Elementary School Middle School High School 11% 20% 26% 4
As we continue to see time and time again, grade level matters when it comes to access and to the use of technology. This trend seems to be evening out and will continue to do so as more software is developed for these devices at the lower grade levels, and the cost of mobile devices goes down. The devices need to be built for use by younger students in terms of both ease of use and durability. BYOD (bring your own device) is still a relatively new concept in schools. Of the case studies that have been successful, the districts have had a well-organized implementation plan that has included parents, teachers, students and administrators at all phases of the strategic plan. A similar pattern has shown to be true using the BYOD scenario. In the Meru Networks survey, when the students were allowed to bring devices from home for use in the school, the percentage of BYOD increases as the age of the student increases. A graph below shows the difference in the percentage of students who can bring their own mobile devices by grade level. To increase the use of mobile devices at home, some districts are using mobile hot spots to allow students to connect to the web when away from school. In February 2014, Education Week talked about a pilot study done in Green Bay, WI. They used Chromebooks and smart spot devices to be used in the homes of students who did not have Internet. Similar pilots are being run in Detroit, Miami Dade, Florida, Fairfax County, Virginia and Tucson, Arizona. These pilots have helped to move the BYOD programs further ahead in these districts. 5
Very few school districts are in a position to require students to bring devices from home. Public schools cannot create policies that purposely divide students by their SES (social economic status). Up until now, most schools have chosen not to move in the BYOD direction, especially at the lower age levels because of the complicated planning process and the acceptance from the school and home communities. This trend does continue to grow however, especially in the districts that cannot afford to provide the hardware for their students because of budget constraints. As BYOD procedures become more standardized and more districts can share them, it will make the process more efficient and easier to implement. Also, there will be more case studies used as examples of best practices so other districts can use these as role models. It is also interesting to note that in the Meru Networks study, most schools/districts they surveyed are serving the students with a ratio that is less than one device to teachers/students per classroom. 35% of the respondents answered this way. This is often the case in the districts with lower capital budgets. The second highest response rate jumped to a ratio of more than 3:1 devices to teachers/ students, with 16% of the respondents. The below ratios are listed from most responses to least responses. Less than 1:1 3 35% More than 1:1 16% 1:1 14% Did not know 14% 2:1 & 3:1 11 11% (each) While it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from these data, it does appear that most of the survey respondents do not have many mobile devices per classroom. This indicates that there is plenty of room for growth in the mobile area. Many education experts talk about the advantages of a 1:1 implementation (i.e. a one device per student ratio) for the most effective means to personalizing education. The Common Core State Standards also supports personalized education and therefore most districts will work to increase the number of devices in each classroom. In August of 2013, Education Week, discussed the push of 1:1 technology and predicted that tablets will surpass desktop and laptops by 2015. This is a trend that will most likely continue. 6
Time Spent Online Overall students are spending more and more time online in school. As we have watched instructional styles change to accommodate this growth, a lot of student practice, homework and research work is done online. Teachers are online looking for new materials, lesson plans, and chatting with other professionals. Similar to what we have seen earlier in this survey, the tendency of high school students being on-line is higher than middle school students and even more so when compared to elementary students. Compare the pyramid charts below as they illustrate the differences between the answers given for elementary, middle and high school level activities. Percentage of Student s Day Spent Online In general, the higher grades have more materials that are appropriate for online use. The older students also tend to have a higher percentage of individuals who have their own smart phones. Their social activities almost require them today. The younger students also have smart phones but more so in middle school than in elementary. The Project Tomorrow Report also illustrates how the older students have more access to online devices than the younger students. 7
Wi-Fi Coverage on Campus When looking at another important factor in online education today access, it is important to examine the availability of Wi-Fi within the school/district setting. Meru Networks survey findings revealed that the majority report access in all indoor areas which is more positive than some may expect. The full results are shown below. All indoor areas 61% All indoor and outdoor areas 18% Public areas only 7% Do not know 3% Most school districts focus on Wi-Fi inside the building for cost and practical reasons - to keep kids inside. The outdoor areas with Wi-Fi provide a positive atmosphere because students need classroom breaks and do need to spend more time outside. For health reasons alone, it seems like a good idea and creates a better social emotional environment for the school. Wi-Fi availability only inside the classrooms seems like a more basic approach and is somewhat limited especially for the project-based work conducted by many students today. Access in the public areas only (e.g. office, library, hallway, café) seems extremely limited in scope and is not very helpful to digital learning. Wi-Fi availability, and the infrastructure within school buildings necessary to support it, is an oftendiscussed topic in the news. In the Marketplace K12 column of Education Week, February 5, 2014, The Chairman of the FCC talks about the plans to double the amount allocated to the E-rate program for the next two years. Currently, 70% of the U.S. schools lack internet speed needed to support curriculum programs. EdNET Insight s State of the K-12 Market 2013 report uncovered that the #1 priority of districts over the next three years is Wireless Networks, with 8 out of 10 districts stating it was a high priority. In the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) Survey in 2013, they found that 40% of the classrooms surveyed had no access to Wi-Fi. Over one-half (57%) of the districts in the survey said they could not support a 1:1 initiative and 57% require Wi-Fi upgrades. Unfortunately the increased money from the E-rate program will not reach schools until 2015. Both of these studies show the need for increased Wi-Fi within schools in order for digital initiatives to be successful. 8
According to a recently released analysis, by CoSN and the Education Superhighway, the cost to bring high speed broadband to 99% of students, as called for in the administration s ConnectEd Initiative, is $800 million per year for the next four years or a total of $3.2 billion. It remains to be seen if that goal will be reached and how the cost to achieve it will be funded. When asked in the Meru Networks survey if the Wi-Fi network was the primary means to gain network access, most answered Yes at a 40% response rate. A small amount, 14%, answered Yes for staff, not students, 37% answered No, meaning they use an internal network that is hard wired to get access to the Internet. There is a critical need in school districts to keep data safe and confidential, and one perceived way to do this is to not use Wi-Fi but to stay on an internal network. Key Results & Conclusions The high school level is more likely to provide mobile devices than are the lower grade levels. The rate for middle schools is only 8% points less than the high schools, so they are not that far apart. The elementary schools lag behind quite a bit in this area (14% points below middle schools). I do see this as a growth area in the younger grades. They need to expand their Wi- Fi capabilities as well as prepare their students for the digital environments they will encounter as they progress in school. A similar pattern develops when the topic of BYOD is addressed. The high schools again are more likely to participate in this program by allowing their students to bring their own devices to school. Of course more high school students own their own devices than younger students, but that is also a changing paradigm. Many middle and elementary students have their own devices as several referenced studies have shown. As BYOD grows in the schools, the need for a more powerful network will become more and more crucial for a successful academic environment. As the ratio of devices to students becomes closer to 1:1, the ultimate goal, the increase in Wi- Fi usage becomes a major issue for each building and its technology administrators. A strong Wi-Fi network will be an essential element in the next few years in order for the Common Core to continue to move forward as well as for districts to realize their goal of improving their student s academic performance. Common Core has emphasized personalized education. The most cost efficient means of providing this is through Wi-Fi, not through hard wiring a LAN. It is becoming easier to expand Wi-Fi into new areas; for example, if a school wants to expand to an outside area for coverage, it is easier to accomplish this through Wi-Fi and various tools (e.g. hotspots) that are available. If new or additional classrooms need to be added to the Wi-Fi system, it is much easier to do so than it is with the traditional LAN structure. 9
Wi-Fi systems today can also provide more security than in the past. All schools are concerned with data security when it involves their students and their personal information. A great opportunity for companies that can provide a reliable and secure Wi-Fi network for schools. Now is the time to be prepared as new money from increased e-rate funding and the improved economic conditions (especially at the state level) become available in 2015. For more information about Meru Networks, visit www.merunetworks.com or email your questions to: meruinfo@merunetworks.com Meru Networks Copyright 2014 Meru Networks, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. Meru and Meru Networks are registered trademarks and Meru Education-Grade (MEG) is a trademark of Meru Networks, Inc., in the United States. All other trademarks, trade names, or service marks mentioned in this document are the property of their respective owners. Meru Networks assumes no responsibility for any inaccuracies in this document. Meru Networks reserves the right to change, modify, transfer, or otherwise revise this publication without notice. 6.14 BR1044.US Meru Networks 894 Ross Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 T +1.408.215.5300 F +1.408.215.5301 E meruinfo@merunetworks.com 10