ADS 2006 Key Findings Preso

8/3/2019 ADS 2006 Key Findings Preso

1/39

1

Americas Digital Schools 2006 -A Five Year Forecast

1


2/39

2006Americas Digital Schools 2006: A Five Year Forecast

June 2006

Survey Background The Hayes Connection and the Greaves Group have surveyed all

2,500 districts with more than 4,000 students. (These districts contain70% of all students.)

The survey asked over 250 unique questions of the respondents. Thenumber of actual questions asked depended on the job classification ofthe respondent. The major job classifications were: superintendents,curriculum supervisors, and technology directors.

Over 500 districts and almost 900 respondents chose to respond to thesurvey, providing a valuable base of data about present data and futureintentions

These slides are based on preliminary data and some numbers willchange when the final report is published. Please review the finalreport for the most accurate information.

Additional information and a copy of the survey is available atwww.ads2006.org

2


3/39


June 2006

Survey Realities

No other quantitative studies available

Self-reported data not perfect

Strong support with opt-ins from 10% ofrespondents

Sponsorship by Discovery Education and

Pearson Education improved the output


4/39


June 2006

So what does the

crystal ball say?


5/39


June 2006

Key Finding #1

Digital schools are transitioning from a

desktop world to a mobile world

3


6/39


June 2006

The Facts

19% of all student devices today are mobileand 50% will be mobile in 2011.

These figures include laptops, tablets, andstudent appliances, but not cell phones orhandhelds or game machines.

4


7/39


June 2006

Key Finding #2

Ubiquitous computing is growing rapidly

Definition: Each student and teacher has at leastone Internet-connected wireless computing device

for use both in the classroom and at home. Cartsolutions and temporary 1:1 environments are notincluded in this definition.

5


8/39


June 2006

The Facts

ADS 2006 indicates that more than 24% of

school districts are in the process oftransitioning to 1:1.

6


9/39


June 2006

1:1 Computing Usage


10/39


June 2006

Top 5 Prerequisites for Ubiquitous Computing


11/39


June 2006

Key Finding #3

Districts using ubiquitous computing

report substantial academic improvement

7


12/39


June 2006

The Facts

87% of school districts which haveimplemented ubiquitous computing, and

where academic results were tracked reportedmoderate to significant positive results

13% report no results or poor results.

8


13/39


June 2006

Academic Performance Improvement Linked to 1:1


14/39


June 2006

Key Finding #4

A bandwidth crisis is looming

9


15/39


June 2006

What it Means

Plans and budgeting for bandwidthgrowth may be seriously

underestimated

10


16/39


June 2006

Why is this a crisis?

The average bandwidth per student of 2.90Kbps is very low. The projected bandwidth

per student in 2011 of 9.57 Kbps is a 3-foldgrowth rate. The fact that educatorsrecognize the need for additional bandwidth isvery positive. The bad news is that 9.57 Kbps

is probably less than a quarter of thebandwidth needed to make most effective useof the Internet in schools.


17/39


June 2006

Comments on Bandwidth Appendix B

At all levels, district to state, most are takingsufficient bandwidth for granted.

There is a disconnect between thetechnologists and the bandwidth they thinkthey need, and the policy level, wherebudgets are set.

Projected bandwidth, while triple today, isgenerally unfunded in out year budgetplanning.


18/39


June 2006

E-Rate and the Bandwidth Crisis We have E-Rate. It will take care of us. FALSE.

The E-Rate story

E-Rate is indeed funding T-1 lines to schools as apriority item, and at a great discount.

But E-Rate is capped at $2.25B/Yr

It wont accommodate a 3 or 10 or 20 fold

increase in required data bandwidth. So at some point, and likely in a couple of years,

schools will be paying the undiscounted rate foradditional T-1 lines


19/39


June 2006

A Real Problem At a major conference a speaker said, We

dont have a bandwidth problem because we

have Gigabit fiber to the desktop. This person missed the point. Were takingabout bandwidth out to the Internet, via andISP, not bandwidth inside a building.

The same person talked about going 1:1 withwireless devices.

This lack of basic understanding of the issuesportends a rocky future.


20/39


June 2006

Why a 3X Growth wont be Enough Districts are predicting a 3X growth in bandwidth.

At the same time they are predicting rapid growth in

several areas that are all heavy bandwidth drivers: 1:1 more machines = more bandwidth 1:1 users use many times more bandwidth than the

average school computer user.

Growth in online courses

Growth of web as primary source of reference data More complex web applications

Desire for ASP hosting vs. local hosting


21/39


June 2006

Peak Load Not Considered

All our bandwidth calculations are justaverages

However we know peak load is an importantfactor in school bandwidth usage.

When the bell rings, bandwidth spikes.

These spikes can not be accommodated ADS2007 will collect live data on the peak

load bandwidth issue.


22/39


June 2006

Areas Impacted by Bandwidth

Courseware locally hosted or ASP model?

Consideration of size of downloaded modules.

Flash can get very large. More use of caching proxy servers

Alternate methods of Internet delivery such as

WiMax Etc


23/39


June 2006

Importance of Bandwidth in Students Homes


24/39


June 2006

Key Finding #5

Online learning is growing

11


25/39


June 2006

The Facts Online learning is currently used by only 3.8%

of students.

By 2011 this figure will grow to 15.6%, or afour-fold increase.

12


26/39


June 2006

Students Taking Online Courses


27/39


June 2006

Top 5 Factors for Adopting a Primarily Digital Curriculum


28/39


June 2006

Key Finding #6

Professional development is key

13


29/39


June 2006

What it Means

Only 16.9% of district curriculum directorsbelieve that their current professionaldevelopment program is prepared to support1:1 computing effectively.

65% of superintendents rank professional

development as extremely important insuccessful 1:1 computing initiatives.

14


30/39


June 2006

Professional DevelopmentReadiness for 1:1 Initiative


31/39


June 2006

Professional Development ExpenditureNeeded for a 1:1 Initiative


32/39


June 2006

Key Finding #7

Low total cost of ownership is

increasingly important

15


33/39


June 2006

What it means

When every student has a computer, everyadded dollar of support cost per computer

becomes an added dollar per student, not 20cents per student as in a 5:1 student/computer school environment.

16


34/39


June 2006

Importance of TCO Tech Directors


35/39


June 2006

Key Finding #8

The fastest-growing products over the

next five years

17


36/39


June 2006

Fastest Growing Products

18


37/39


June 2006

Student Appliance Definition

Designed specifically for education Low Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Wireless networking Rugged & light weight (2 pound target)

Battery life of 6 hours or more Color screenat least 7 diagonal and 800x480 resolution Clamshell or tablet form factor but including a keyboard Instant-on operating system, such as Embedded XP, Windows CE, or

Linux Flash memory, i.e., no hard drive or rotating storage

Software to include: a full set of local applications for word processing,spreadsheets, math function plotters, etc., a highly functional webbrowser and a broad range of file viewers and media players.

65


38/39


June 2006

Likelihood of Adopting a Student Appliance

18


39/39


J 2006

Beyond the Key Findings

100 more pages of annotated charts

250 pages of cross tabs

Several hundred open end responses

Its no longer necessary to guess theanswers to many importantubiquitous computing questions.

ADS 2006 Key Findings Preso

Documents

Transcript of ADS 2006 Key Findings Preso