Washington SchoolSpeedTest Month Overview of Initial Findings Test Month: October 2013

1. Washington SchoolSpeedTest MonthOverview of Initial FindingsTest Month: October 2013

2. Summary of Findings Participation 1,079 schools* (46%) across 207 districts and school operating organizations participated in SST • School sample represents 55% of students • 13 tests per site on average • 54% of sites tested took 6+ tests Assessment Readiness: 85% of schools are ready for SBAC assessment • 59% for media-rich online assessment • 27% ready for basic assessment Digital Learning Readiness: 51% of schools meet or exceed recommendations for robust digital learning (vs. 31% nationwide) Average kbps / student: *911 schools are included in analysis. 159 schools excluded due to high ratio of failed tests (25+% of total tests per site); 9 schools excluded due to lack of student enrollment data

3. State Summary: Online Assessment Readiness At current bandwidth availability, 85% of schools are ready for online assessment (59% of schools are ready for media-rich online assessment) Not ready for online assessment Basic assessment ready Media-rich assessment ready

4. State Summary: Digital Learning Readiness Schools’ long-term connectivity goals should focus on developing capacity for digital learning; 51% of schools today are ready for technology-rich digital learning Not ready Basic connectivity Digital learning ready Emerging reliance

5. Participation: 48% of sites tested took 6 or more tests15% of sites had a failed test ratio of 25+% Excluded Lower test validity due to fewer tests per site *If failed tests represented 25% or more of total tests taken, school results considered invalid and are excluded from analysis. See appendix for list of schools.

6. Sample Representativeness: Remote rural schools are slightly under-represented in the sample

7. School Size Effects

8. In more remote areas, variability in per-site bandwidthincreases Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

9. However, urban cluster and remote rural schools havegreatest percentage of students without sufficient bandwidth Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

10. Nearly 70% of students with less than 10 kbps ofbandwidthare in urban cluster schools 88% of these students are in suburbs or towns near principal cities, with ~3 kbps/student on average Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

11. Median 0-25% FRL school has almost 2x bandwidthcompared to the median 80-100% FRL school Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

12. 80-100% FRL schools have lowest % of students with 100+ kbps, though none measured <10 kbps/student Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

13. Appendix

14. Participation: 33% of individual tests taken by teachers, 23% by technology staff, 21% by school and district staff

15. Participation: Sample is relatively even across school levels

16. School Level: kbps / student Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

17. FRL population: Relative mix of FRL % groups does not vary dramatically across bandwidth categories Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

18. SchoolSpeedTest results help identify some schoolsshowing signs of possible network congestion Sample SST measurements for a school: 10 Mbps 50 Mbps Max Mbps Median Mbps • Signs of possible network congestion: • Max Mbps is significantly higher than Median Mbps (i.e. 3x) • Standard deviation of test results is low (most tests results are close to the average) • *Only schools that took 10 or more tests were evaluated for possible network congestion

19. School Size: Possible Congestion

20. School Level: Possible Congestion Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

21. FRL population: Possible Congestion Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

22. Locale: Possible Congestion Note: Analysis excludes schools with 750+ students

23. Rationale for ESH locale grouping