Covid-19 Exposed the Network Shortages Experienced by Students
Written by Emily Burns
In 2022, John Machusky and Katherine Herbert-Berger explored the online learning infrastructure in the United States public education system in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Traditional education did not need to implement backup strategies, but when thrust into a time of virtual and hybrid learning, problems arose. In March 2020, all educators felt the need for backup plans regarding technology during this unprecedented educational time. In their research, Machusky and Herbert-Berger explored the technological challenges that plagued the public education system as the country moved from traditional brick-and-mortar education to virtual learning.
A significant focus of their research was on the technical barriers both educators and students experienced, especially regarding broadband or the capacity at which a network can transmit data. One of the largest challenges identified was ensuring students and their families had access to connect to the internet. While providing hardware for every student to complete schoolwork during the virtual learning experience is still a concern, Machusky and Herbert-Berger explore the problems of having the hardware without access to the internet and the network. Across the country, providing hotspots to families was one solution to ensure connectivity, but ultimately there wasn’t enough to erase the need. As a result, school districts implemented alternative solutions, such as suggesting that students travel to local libraries or school parking lots to connect to the internet and complete assignments.
In my own teaching experience, my school district only had a few hotspots to provide, so the agreement was that we would give out those hotspots to families with multiple children attending school. Then, we were granted federal money to spend, and we installed a wifi connection point in our stadium surrounded by neighborhoods, hoping that students could access the network through the new access point or have the ability to travel to the stadium during school hours. Of course, neither was a perfect solution, but what else was possible?
In addition to highlighting the difficulties experienced by educators, students, and parents, Machusky and Herbert-Berger attempt to suggest future improvements concerning online/hybrid learning environments and network usage. One solution is the early implementation of replacing pay phones with smart kiosks in urban areas. If we consider the accessibility this would provide to students and families in urban areas, such as New York City, connecting to the internet through more networks would be possible. Another possibility would be to park school buses loaded with wifi access points in highly populated neighborhoods. Both are great ideas for urban cities. What about the connection concerns of students living in rural areas without access to networks connecting to the internet? Speaking for all educators, we want to avoid being put into the position of virtual learning again. Still, if necessary, we need to be ready to have the proper hardware, software, and network connections to provide our students with quality education. It is necessary to help all students have access to networks that can allow them to learn successfully. School districts must continue to plan for emergencies as we experienced with the Covid-19 pandemic.
References
Machusky, J. A., & Herbert-Berger, K. G. (2022). Understanding online learning infrastructure in U.S. K-12 schools: A review of challenges and emerging trends. International Journal of Educational Research, 114, [101993]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101993
Comment by Tristan Silver
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 made the disparity in Internet & device access in the United States an urgent issue to be addressed and many school districts, public libraries, and nonprofit organizations such as PCs for People sprung into action to ensure that all students would be able to participate and distance learning. As you mentioned, the distribution of mobile hotspots and installation of Wi-Fi connection points were two methods used to provide Internet access to students.
One concern I've always had regarding these patch measures of Internet access is that not only is the coverage on these devices variable—because how well they work depends on how close you are to cell towers—but the security of these devices is not as strong as in-home or at-school connectivity can be. For example, Bexley Public Library is one of several public libraries in Franklin County that lend mobile hotspots to library cardholders for a set period of time. On the Bexley Public Library website, you can view instructions on how to use their mobile hotspots and even see the network name and password conventions the library uses for their hotspots. While this is an important information for borrowers to access, it also makes it very easy for others to guess the mobile hotspot information and sneakily sign in to the same network. If other members of a student's family are using the same hotspot to access sensitive personal information such as bank statements or W-2s, they could be at a higher risk of this information being compromised.
The same concern applies to free or reduced cost devices such as laptops and PCs. Equitable Internet access is not truly equitable without adequate security and antivirus support and it is important that organizations distributing these devices provide protection beyond preinstalled software such as Windows Defender. For example, PCS for People includes MalwareBytes on all their distributed equipment but doesn’t specify whether it is the free version or MalwareBytes Premium that is installed, the former of which can’t help protect you from malware and can only help to clean up a computer that is already infected.