AQEP Internet Connectivity Report
March 2017
David Leeming
Australian Aid: managed by Palladium on behalf of the Australian Government and in collaboration with the Fiji Ministry of Education AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Contents
Acronyms and abbreviations ...... 4 1 Executive summary ...... 5 2 Terms of reference...... 8 3 Methodology...... 8 4 Needs analysis and minimum standards for connectivity ...... 10 4.1 School connectivity needs ...... 10 4.2 School connectivity planning ...... 12 4.3 Defining connectivity: broadband ...... 14 4.4 Defining a minimum standard of connectivity for schools...... 15 5 Survey of school connectivity ...... 18 5.1 Consultations with Divisional and District EOs ...... 18 5.2 FEMIS survey...... 19 5.3 Schools using VSAT...... 21 5.4 Case studies...... 23 5.5 Triangulation of the data...... 25 5.6 Prioritised lists of schools that need improved connectivity ...... 26 6 Recommended access technology for schools ...... 28 6.1 Option 1: Low cost method using a 4G dongle and router...... 29 6.2 Option 2: High performance outdoor modem with Wi-Fi...... 30 6.3 Microwave links (fixed wireless broadband) ...... 32 6.4 VSAT...... 33 6.5 ISP data...... 34 7 Estimated costs ...... 35 8 Recommendations...... 40 9 Next steps...... 43
Annex 1: Considerations for sustainable school connectivity ...... 44 Annex 2: List of Schools identified by Divisional and District Education Officers ...... 45 Annex 3: Responses to the FEMIS survey Y/N questions ...... 51 Annex 4: Responses to the FEMIS survey short text questions...... 53 Annex 5: List of schools using TFL’s VSAT solution (VTSAT) ...... 57 Annex 6: List of schools identified by the FEMIS survey and confirmed by DEOs...... 59 Annex 7: Top Priority List (79 schools confirmed with “no connectivity”)...... 61 Annex 8: High Priority List (100 schools confirmed with “poor connectivity”)...... 64 Annex 9: Medium Priority List (130 schools with mixed connectivity issues) ...... 68 Annex 10: Lower Priority List (62 schools with “slow but stable” connections) ...... 72 Annex 11: Mini Case Studies ...... 74 Nabobuco District School, Nausori District (ID 1828)...... 74 Wainimala Secondary School (ID 9439) and Ratu Alipate Memorial School (ID 1854) ...... 76 Bemana District School, Nadroga-Navosa District (ID 1740)...... 78 Natutale Primary School, Nadroga-Navosa District (ID 1765) ...... 80 Bayly Memorial School, Ra District (ID 2024) ...... 82 Navesau Adventist High School, Ra District (ID 2048) ...... 84
PAGE 2 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Bucalevu Primary School, Ra District (ID 2046) ...... 86 Nabala Secondary School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 9249) ...... 87 Naduri District School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1609) ...... 89 Cadranasiga District School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1606)...... 91 Korotolutolu Primary School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1661) ...... 93 Seaqaqa Primary School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1641) ...... 95 Ratu Luke Memorial School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1110)...... 97 Annex 12: Examples of access technologies ...... 98 Annex 13: TFL’s VTSAT price schedules...... 102 Annex 14: Consultations ...... 103 Annex 15: Generic specifications for recommended access technologies...... 104 Annex 16: Pilot project outline...... 105
Tables Table 1: Internet use / applications observed in schools visited...... 12 Table 2: Approaches to school connectivity planning (Connect A School, ITU) ...... 13 Table 3: Features of Broadband...... 14 Table 4: Example of targets set for schools in the UK in 2012 with two typical school configurations ...... 15 Table 5: Suggested broadband targets for schools...... 16 Table 6: Additional criteria for sustainable permanent connectivity for schools...... 17 Table 7: Schools with inadequate connectivity as judged by District officers ...... 19 Table 8: Detail from the aggregated Y/N survey responses ...... 20 Table 9: Summary of responses to FEMIS text question 5 (389 responses)...... 21 Table 10: TFL data on schools with VSATs (VTSAT Ku-band) ...... 22 Table 11: Schools in Eastern Division that own a VSAT or have access to a community VSAT...... 22 Table 12: Summary of schools that need improved connectivity...... 26 Table 13: Cost estimates for the Top priority list of schools ...... 35 Table 14: Cost estimates for the High priority list of schools ...... 36 Table 15: Cost estimates for the Medium priority list of schools...... 37 Table 16: Cost estimates for the Lower priority list of schools...... 38 Table 17: Cost estimates summary...... 39 Table 18: Assumptions made in testing the sensitivity of cost estimates ...... 39
Figures Figure 1: Locations of the schools visited for the mini-case studies...... 24 Figure 2: The Top Priority schools that have no connectivity ...... 27 Figure 3: 4G dongle with external MIMO antenna (top) and high gain external antenna used at Nabala school, installed by Webteck...... 29 Figure 4: USB modem dock with integrated router and Wi-Fi hotspot...... 30 Figure 5: Example of an ISP grade outdoor cellular modem/router/Wi-Fi solution DuxCel-OUT with high gain multiband antenna (800-2600 MHz)...... 31 Figure 6: A dedicated microwave link (Digicel) at Wainimala School Government Telecentre (left). Typical small panel antenna equipment installed on a building (centre and right)...... 32 Figure 7: VTSAT at Natutale PS, Nadroga-Navosa ...... 33
Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge and thank everyone who shared information contributing to this study, including the teachers interviewed for the case studies, Ministry of Education and ITC Fiji Government officers, TAF and ISPs. The FEMIS team of the Ministry of Education deserve special mention for their ever helpful, collaborative approach and hard work supplying the FEMIS data. The AQEP team provided excellent facilitation, especially Education Officer Narain Sharma who greatly assisted in the field work and shared his local knowledge and expert opinion, invaluable in the writing of this report.
PAGE 3 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Acronyms and abbreviations
2G Second generation wireless telephone technology 3G Third generation wireless telephone technology 4G Fourth generation wireless technology AQEP Access to Quality Education Program CIR Committed information rate DEO Divisional or District Education Officer (as per the context) DSL Digital subscriber line FB Facebook FEA Fiji Electricity Authority FEMIS Fiji Education Management Information System FJD Fiji dollars GTC Government Telecentre (a Fiji Government initiative) HT Head Teacher ICT Information and Communications Technology ISP Internet Service Provider ITC Fiji Government IT Department ITU International Telecommunication Union LAN Local area network LOS Line of sight LTE Long-term evolution (a fourth generation standard for high-speed wireless communication) MIMO Multiple Input Multiple Output (antenna technology to increase speeds used with later generations) MOE Fiji Ministry of Education NEN UK National Education Network OER Open Educational Resources POE Power over Ethernet (powering devices through the network cable) QoS Quality of service (technical description of a broadband service) RF Radio frequency TAF Telecommunication Authority of Fiji TC Winston Tropical Cyclone Winston TFL Telekom Fiji T&L Teaching and learning UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Commission USB Universal Serial Bus (a port to connect keyboards, mice, printers, scanners, digital cameras, and removable media drives) VLE Virtual Learning Environment VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol VSAT Very Small Aperture Terminal (a commonly used satellite Internet system) VTSAT A VSAT service (see above) retailed by Telekom Fiji Wi-Fi Technology for wireless networking, typically used for local area networks WIMAX Worldwide interoperability for microwave access (a technology for delivering wireless broadband)
PAGE 4 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
1 Executive summary
Fiji has already gone a long way in connecting schools and making the Internet work towards student success. The Ministry of Education is now focused on helping those remaining schools without adequate connectivity to catch up. The Access to Quality Education Program AQEP has commissioned this study to identify how many schools do not have adequate connectivity, and estimate the costs to provide it.
The study first undertook case studies of 13 representative schools to define a minimum standard of “sustainable connectivity”. It was found that, not only the technological features of broadband are important, but also organisational, social and financial factors. From this definition, a set of criteria for “sustainable school connectivity” were developed. These include target network speeds of 2Mbps for small schools and 8Mbps for larger schools; a reasonable expectation given Fiji’s 3G and 4G services.
The study’s main focus was in identifying which schools need improvements. Connectivity is very site specific, meaning that even in good coverage areas, there can be blind spots. As it would be impracticable to conduct physical surveys of all 907 schools, data on individual school connectivity was obtained through a survey using Fiji’s educational management information system (FEMIS). This was triangulated with data from an additional survey of District and Divisional Education Officers in order to identify the schools. An analysis was carried out, leading to the schools being prioritised as top, high, medium and lower priority for intervention as shown below.
Total Primary Secondary No connectivity Have to travel Intermittent
Top Priority 79 75 4 79 - -
High Priority 100 91 9 5 16 84
Medium Priority 130 113 17 5 1 124
62 Lower Priority 62 52 10 - - (stable but slow)
The majority of schools fall into the “intermittent” category. Consequently, technical solutions are recommended for schools to enhance their connectivity using specialised equipment and good practices. These were selected on the basis that they are easy to install and the cost is reasonable. They work by compounding a number of advantages, i.e., using devices with good sensitivity, using high gain external antennas if necessary, and locating them where the signal is strongest by putting them outdoors in an elevated position and by minimising RF cable losses.
The improvements should be driven by a “bottom up approach” where recommended solutions are installed by local IT companies at the request of individual schools (or by arrangement at the District level). The approach should benefit from guidance embedded at the level of district offices, but coordinated and with demand aggregated centrally. Recommended alternatives include fixed microwave links, and VSAT satellite connectivity where there are no terrestrial options.
Based on these solutions and an analysis that matched solutions broadly with the categories above, the following cost estimates were determined.
PAGE 5 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Number of Cost estimate schools (FJD) Top Priority Schools Schools that are confirmed by more than one 79 1,166,000 source as having no connectivity. High Priority Schools Schools that are confirmed by more than one 100 545,000 source as having poor or intermittent connectivity. Medium Priority Mostly schools in the “intermittent” category but 130 637,500 where it is not confirmed by another source. Lower Priority Schools that say they have some stable 62 229,000 connectivity but that it is too slow. TOTAL ESTIMATED Assumptions of equipment/installation costs are on 371 2,577,500 COST the cautious side. Using the most optimistic assumptions of Low estimate 1,876,500 equipment/installation costs.
The cost estimate includes dedicated solar power supplies for the Internet equipment for all schools that do not have grid power. This is because it is essential to have the Internet connectivity available when it is needed (i.e. always on and not just when a generator is powered up).
The following next steps are recommended for the Ministry of Education. 1. Consider the cost estimates made in this report and decide on the scope. 2. Consider a small pilot project to test and evaluate the technical solutions recommended in the report and conduct associated training. An outline with estimated costs is provided in Annex 16. 3. Using the lessons learned from the above, a program can be designed to cater for all the schools.
Other recommendations made in the report are summarised below. Include connectivity as an indicator of school quality. Embed guidance on recommended solutions and good practices at the District education level. Adopt the “bottom up approach” to planning school connectivity as the most sustainable for Fiji, with a “push from the top” to promote better coordination and to provide models for approaches. Commission surveys before committing to VSATs, as terrestrial connections are more efficient. Invite local companies to offer services and recommended solutions, as local support is most sustainable. Work with the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) at a central level to aggregate demand, tailor plans to better meet school needs, and to develop a unified approach and costing for special solutions, such as microwave links. Consider providing a standard dedicated solar power supply for the connectivity (including Wi-Fi and LAN) for all schools using generators, so that the Internet will be available independently. Training is needed so that schools can monitor and manage access and usage. Training materials could be made available on FEMIS. Minimum standards need to be enforced regarding equipment installation, including cabling. In collaboration with the Fiji Government IT Department (ITC), develop some standards that local IT companies should abide by, which can be circulated through the District offices to schools. Schools should take ownership and develop policies on connectivity and applications, in close collaboration with their managements. This could be integrated into school-based management.
PAGE 6 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Online delivery of exams is preferred because it is secure and efficient. However, there is a need to overcome fears that schools have due to unreliable connectivity and perceived costs.
The methodology used in this study has resulted in much useful data being generated on the state of Internet utilisation in Fijian schools, including the opportunities and constraints. It is hoped this can be used to drive quality.
PAGE 7 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
2 Terms of reference
This report is a study of Internet connectivity of Fijian schools with costs and recommendations for providing a sufficient standard of connectivity at all schools.
The terms of reference for the study were to: determine the number and location of schools without Internet connectivity interview ministry staff, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), schools and others as necessary indicate reliability of data collected report existing connectivity problems and mitigation steps with any new connections identify risk where appropriate investigate the use of novel technologies where appropriate.
Connectivity is a term that can be interpreted variously, for instance in a narrow telecommunication sense, or in a broad sense such as in the sociology of education and the Internet. Even the former needs to be defined more precisely, i.e. in terms of technical criteria. Connectivity for education enables administrative, operational, curricular needs to be met, as well as extra-curricular needs, such as outreach to parents and community.
This implies the following key questions for the study: 1. How can we define “sustainable school connectivity”? 2. What are the criteria for a minimum level of connectivity based on the needs? 3. How many schools are failing to achieve this minimum level of connectivity? 4. What solutions are available and what are the costs?
The approach should be needs driven, inclusive of all stakeholders. The recommendations must be sustainable, pragmatic, affordable and doable.
3 Methodology
In planning for school connectivity, we need a methodology that asks the question “connecting for what?” We are seeking to provide a standard of connectivity that meets the curricular and operational needs of the school in delivering education. Therefore, we should not just take a narrow technological view. Adding the word “sustainable” to “school connectivity” implies that we should take into account broader considerations, constraints and enabling factors.
Sustainability may be thought of as having a number of dimensions. Financial, organisational, social and technological factors are equally important in achieving sustainable school connectivity. For instance, financial factors include not only cost and budget considerations but ease of payment, plans that fit the requirements and ability to control costs (through monitoring usage). Organisational factors include training, policies at school, district and central levels, and standards. The social dimension promotes sustainability at the level of community engagement by facilitating better outreach, communication and authentic participation of parents.
PAGE 8 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The Internet heralds many changes in the way things are done, including education. It is also prudent to understand the sociological impacts of the “Internetisation” of education. For instance, if we do not carry experienced teachers along with the changes, we risk disempowering or de-skilling those who cannot or prefer not to adopt the new ICT enabled pedagogies. Such divides can open up if schools do not all enjoy the same minimum standard of connectivity and the accompanying support, so that changes are seen as opportunities.
UNESCO is putting forward the context of Internet Universality1 as a normative template for Internet governance. By integrating the concept’s four interacting principles into our study, it supports sustainability by ensuring that access is linked to rights, openness and participation of all the stakeholders of student success. For instance, the connectivity must be accessible inclusively by girl students. If connectivity is accompanied by access policies that allow for the changing roles of teachers and learners, and the participation of parents and community in school life, it will better meet demand and be more prioritised by school administrations and stakeholders as an integral and enabling feature of education.
These considerations have a material impact on the study in two ways. Firstly, they suggest that connectivity should be interpreted broadly and related to needs, and secondly that a definition of the minimum standard of connectivity is needed. This provides a forward-looking basis for the study.
The study comprised the following activities. 1) A needs analysis leading to a definition of the minimum standard of connectivity. This was informed by consultations with the Ministry of Education (MoE), the Fiji Government IT Department (ITC), other stakeholders and visits to schools (described below as case studies). This is described in Section 4. 2) A survey of all schools in Fiji, using a survey feature of the Fiji Education Management Information System (FEMIS), as well as consultations with Divisional and District Education Officers. This is described in Section 5. 3) An analysis of the survey data including cross-referencing (triangulating) data from different sources to build confidence in the results. This is described in Section 5.5. 4) An assessment of technical solutions to the connectivity issues identified in the study, involving consultations with ISPs, review of coverage data and estimation of costs. This is described in Sections 6 and 7. A full list of recommendations is discussed in Section 8, and guidelines for Next Steps in Section 9.
The annexes provide detailed background for this report, including responses to the surveys (Annexes 3 and 4) and individual schools listed by priority (Annexes 7 to 10). The school case studies are presented in Annex 11. Access technologies and prices are discussed in Annexes 12 and 13. Annex 14 lists the stakeholders consulted for the study. Annex 16 provides a pilot project outline.
1 http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/crosscutting-priorities/unesco-internet-study/internet-universality/
PAGE 9 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
4 Needs analysis and minimum standards for connectivity
4.1 School connectivity needs
Connectivity should be based on actual needs, current and future. These will be different for small schools compared to large schools. The needs dictate the requirements for bandwidth, access and other variables, such as availability/uptime (students or women in the community, for instance, need access at certain times of day).
According to the UK’s National Education Network (NEN)2, when assessing broadband requirements, it is “important to fully understand the applications currently supported or likely to be required to deliver the educational and management outcomes of the school’s strategic development plans”.
Some needs are requirements of the education system, the most obvious of which are: updating FEMIS with daily operational data, such as student attendance email communication with MoE and the District/Divisional offices student research, especially senior primary years where assignments are examinable exam delivery: schools are encouraged to opt for just-in-time online delivery of exams; this is a time-critical need and requires connectivity with high reliability and uptime teachers’ research for lesson preparation and updating of subject knowledge.
However, schools use the Internet in other ways that may not be system requirements, but are innovations or adaptations. The Internet creates affordances that schools may identify as useful opportunities. For example, to improve administrative efficiency or connect the school computer lab. Likewise, connectivity creates affordances associated with community and parental outreach and engagement, and to celebrate and showcase student achievement. This kind of uptake of the Internet is driven by the need for school quality improvement and might be linked to School Based Management (SBM), an initiative of AQEP.
The drive for quality is not equal across all schools and their managements. ICT uptake by teachers is also affected by a range of factors, including skills, attitudes and beliefs, pedagogical reasoning and policy discourse. On the positive side, as ICTs and devices become increasingly diffused across society and are increasingly needed (in tertiary education, for example), they can be thought of as “environmental resources” and it will become more commonsense to use them in teaching and learning.
One implication is that schools will have an increasing need for bandwidth, which means that connectivity solutions need to be upgradable and forward-looking. If we look to a country more advanced in ICT, such as the UK, we can see the sort of applications that will be commonplace in Fiji too, in the future. Box 1 shows a list of typical uses in UK schools. Most schools in Fiji are yet to adopt most of these applications, but as will be seen in the case studies, there are early adapters which show that, over time, such applications will also become more widespread in Fiji with attendant increase in demand for bandwidth.
2 http://www.nen.gov.uk/advice/selecting-broadband-connectivity-for-your-school
PAGE 10 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
How schools perceive the opportunities and affordances of Box 1: Typical uses of broadband connectivity and link them to their school development connectivity in UK schools (NEN) needs was a subject of inquiry. We, therefore, asked schools how they were working together with their management Pupil Internet access for research (School Board) to develop their policies and plans for – browsing, including video and images managing and leveraging connectivity. Staff use for class teaching, including real time applications The main drivers for schools to ensure they have Internet (talking books, iPlayer, YouTube) connectivity are the following: Staff mail with attachments 1. updating FEMIS with daily student data Pupil email 2. email communication, MOE circulars etc. School office functions, including MIS 3. student research School portal, website or virtual 4. downloading exam papers securely just in time for learning environment (VLE) the examinations. Pupil use of cloud-based functions VLE, Google Apps, Office 365 etc How this need is felt at the school level is illustrated in the Cross-school or cross-site case studies. For instance, at Korotolutolu school there is no working and support for ICT mobile network coverage and only patchy voice call IP communications VoIP, video, Skype coverage. This means the Head Teacher has to travel to a Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) nearby town every weekend to update FEMIS – a task made Schools’ operational systems, onerous as the data builds up during the week. Likewise, at remote access and reporting for Nabala Secondary School students were bussed into Labasa functions such as energy consumption, catering systems once a week to do online research as required in the etc. curriculum before a broadband solution was found. Multi‐agency requirements
Where good connectivity is ensured, some schools are demonstrating futures for connectivity in supporting student success. For instance, Seaqaqa Primary School administration has adopted paperless management with circulars emailed to teachers, whereas before they had to be delivered by hand to all 17 classrooms. A computer lab and conference facility has been installed with strong support from the management. The school is highly supportive of online exam delivery and has an active program to involve parents in students’ computer studies. The school has a backup connection and is managing everything within the allocated ICT budget.
There are also programs being piloted, such as the MoE’s Digital Literacy Program, that will generate demand for better connectivity and especially bandwidth.
Affordability is also a key consideration as schools have to match their needs and aspirations with their ICT budgets. Schools in Fiji receive an ICT budget of 15% of their total grant. From this, they can pay for equipment, monthly plans and consumables. A school grant is calculated based on student numbers plus a fixed component. The amount differs for primary and secondary, but to give an example, a primary school with 100 students would receive around FJD $35,000, of which $5,250 or around $440 per month is to be used for ICT. In comparison, typical spending on 3/4G plans reported by the schools we visited was $50 per month for 40GB. Some schools are connected with Telekom Fiji’s VSAT solution and pay a special rate of $173 per month for 30GB (but at a bandwidth of only 256kbps).
PAGE 11 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The range of applications for Internet use by schools visited in the study is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Internet use / applications observed in schools visited
Usage type Description Driver/Uptake Bandwidth Administrative / Updating FEMIS with daily data Required Low operational Downloading exams Encouraged but Low optional Email communication (external) Required Low School internal communication – paperless Early adopters Low office Curricular needs Student research Required Medium Teachers’ lesson preparation Professional need Medium Access curriculum resources (FEMIS) Recommended Medium Access multimedia resources (OERs) Early adopters High Professional Teachers’ subject knowledge Professional need Low/medium development Teacher forums (inc. FEMIS) Early adopters Low School School website / Social media page Many schools Medium communication and Parents and community engagement outreach Computer education School computer labs Many schools High Community access / learning centres Special programs Digital Literacy Program MOE program for Very high Class sets of tablets selected schools
4.2 School connectivity planning
Technology is advancing in parallel with the growth in demand by schools as described above. The next generation of wireless technology – 5G – is already on the horizon, offering greater speeds. An important point to make in this regard is that “bottom up” approaches, where schools are encouraged to find their own solutions from the marketplace, are more future-proofed than “top-down” approaches where special networking solutions are planned centrally.
Different approaches to school connectivity planning are described in the International Telecommunication Unit’s (ITU) Connect A School toolkit3. A comparison of the pros and cons of top-down, bottom-up and hybrid approaches is shown in Table 2 (reproduced from the toolkit). Some of the advantages and disadvantages in each approach are highlighted.
In Fiji’s case, there is a relatively strong telecommunications sector. It is already proven that most schools successfully seek out appropriate means of Internet connection directly from the marketplace. Therefore, the bottom-up approach is most appropriate and sustainable. However, the fact that a sizable number of schools are not achieving sustainable connectivity indicates that some intervention is needed.
3 http://connectaschool.org/itu-module/21/541/en/schools/connectivity/reg/3.3.3/
PAGE 12 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
For instance, better guidance for schools, providing consistency of technical solutions and in the usage of ICTs in education could be embedded at the District level. Where there is a need to aggregate demand and build economies of scale or to seek special funding, intervention at the central MoE level is recommended.
The framework below is a useful reference suggested to MOE as input to policy making.
Table 2: Approaches to school connectivity planning (Connect A School, ITU) adapted by the author, to show elements that are most pertinent in the case of Fiji
Approach Advantages Disadvantages (Risks)
Top-Down Lack of direct contact between Centralised agency Guarantees uniformity in provision recipient schools and centralised (i.e. MoE) identifies of connectivity agency may lead to gap in views of schools to be connected May provide capacity training and connectivity needs or goals (e.g., primary, secondary, support to teachers Too much uniformity can create a tertiary; public, private; one-size-fits-all approach and a urban, rural) Offers economies of scale – the government can establish mismatch between funding and attractive agreements with needs service providers for Lack of a central plan or connectivity, equipment, service complacency by Ministry of fees maintenance, support, etc. Education may delay school May help to prioritise which schools connectivity should receive connectivity Can create a lack of transparency in school deployment process
Hybrid Involves schools in Local schools may not have a Centralised or implementation of connectivity sufficient understanding of the intermediate agency and usage of ICTs in education benefits of Internet access and use (Divisional/District levels) Provides guidance and of ICTs in education decides on national consistency on technical Local schools may lack personnel specifications for solutions qualified to manage new technologies connectivity but individual schools must apply Makes schools focus on specific Schools may not be aware of the needs and how to meet those availability of funds for connectivity needs Schools that do not meet requirements Can ensure funds are available remain unconnected School selection more transparent
Bottom-Up Schools that have resources can Schools do not benefit from economies Schools arrange for their implement connectivity without of scale own connectivity through delay Integration of local connectivity their own funds or funds Schools can select solutions that solutions into eventual government- offered to them by private are appropriate to their wide plan becomes more complex sector or NGOs circumstances Long-term sustainability uncertain Some development partners are willing to fund smaller pilot projects rather than large-scale programs
Source: http://connectaschool.org/, ITU and partners
PAGE 13 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
4.3 Defining connectivity: broadband
The dictionary definition of connectivity is “the state or extent of being connected”. This study is primarily concerned with Internet connection. Broadband is a category of Internet connection that meets certain performance criteria. Features of broadband are described below:
Table 3: Features of broadband
Bandwidth The speed of data downloading and uploading, measured in Kilobits or Megabits per second (Kbps/Mbps). Often only the peak speed is given whereas the experienced speed can vary depending on quality of service (QoS – see below).
Data The amount of information carried by the Internet and measured in Gigabytes (GB).
Uptime The percentage of time the service is being provided by the Internet Service Provider. (Some definitions of broadband require more or less 100% uptime.) We include weather conditions which can affect some technologies.
Availability We distinguish this from uptime (and accessibility) as being the percentage time the connectivity is available, due to secondary factors such as power supply or affordability. For instance, schools with generators may only afford to run them a few hours per day, and schools may limit usage to prevent excess charges (this is mainly a factor with VSAT). Hence, Internet may only available at certain times.
Quality of A range of variables that define the technical properties of the connection, including the peak and Service (QoS) confirmed information rate (CIR). CIR is the minimum speed guaranteed by the provider which may be less than the maximum due to sharing (known as contention), latency and other technical properties. In our case, stability is a critical quality variable for mobile Internet, especially in fringing coverage areas, where there can be large fluctuations and intermittencies.
Mobile This is accessed using a suitable modem through the popular mobile technologies including broadband 2/3/4G/LTE/5G. The generation number, e.g. 4G, will indicate the maximum throughputs available with that technology. Mobile broadband speeds are not guaranteed. Mobile Internet is contended (shared) and suffers from degraded performance from congestion and environmental factors, such as distance, location, even rain in the fringe areas. Connectivity obtained through mobile Internet is therefore not dedicated but is inherently variable. In most areas in good coverage, the performance is good enough that this variation is less of a problem. However, when a fixed bandwidth is required (such as with large class sets of student devices connecting concurrently), some uncertainly is introduced. Mobile Internet is almost always metered and paid for by the GB (i.e. for a certain amount of data transfer, regardless of speed).
Dedicated Dedicated connections can be in wired or wireless forms. This includes connections using land broadband lines (DSL) and connections with fixed wireless (microwave) links. Because dedicated Internet connections are optimised for known configurations (point to point), they are usually capable of very high throughput in excess of mobile Internet – although with each generation mobile Internet is leaping forwards in performance (5G has been tested up to 1GBps but only in highly optimised conditions over short distances). Dedicated connections are often priced in terms of the bandwidth (speed) and contention (or CIR) and can be unlimited. In large schools where usage is difficult to control, an unlimited connection helps to maximise exposure for students while ensuring fixed monthly costs.
Total cost of It is important to bear in mind the total costs, for instance, if generators have to be run, and the ownership cost of managing the subscription may be an issue if there is no convenient way to pay the bill or recharge one’s quota.
PAGE 14 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
4.4 Defining a minimum standard of connectivity for schools
What does broadband mean when we are connecting schools to the Internet? This is the question posed in the World Bank’s Edutech blog4, which concludes that here is “no simple answer”. As described in the needs analysis above, the state at which a school exists when it can be said to be connected to the Internet is inextricability linked to the goals set out for it, and those goals are not static but have an upward trend.
Many of Fiji’s schools with good 3G and 4G coverage have broadband speeds in excess of their current needs. But what of the others in fringe areas, and what should be the standards as the education system appropriates ICTs more and more? We must have some basis on which to set practical limits.
Different countries are setting broadband targets according to their capacities. These targets vary from 256kbps per consumer in some now outdated definitions to 2Mbps (UK) and the Korean ambitious target of 1Gbps. This is just about the entire spectrum!
We have to set limits that are realistically achievable and we should be guided by the general “state of the Internet” in Fiji. In 2017, it is safe to say that a large percentage of the population have access to reasonably affordable and at least 3G Internet, commonly experiencing downloading speeds of a few Mbps. Where mobile data is available, the lower limit of 256kpbs is really too low for a school in Fiji. A common rule of thumb for schools mentioned in the World Bank article is whether or not video can be streamed without buffering. Of course, there are low and high resolution videos, but perhaps 4Mbps “could be considered a safe threshold to that effect”.
The UK’s National Education Network5 set limits in 2012 based on a target of 2Mbps per user, the number of access devices and an assumption that on average only one in ten devices will be downloading concurrently. The limits are based on actual measurements of peak demand in schools. The upstream (uploading) speed required is assumed to be one quarter of the download speed. If Fiji adopted these limits, a small school of 40–100 students with up to 10 access devices officially connecting should have a target of 2 Mbps. A school with a class set of tablets (40 devices) would then need 8Mbps. Higher targets are also set for future years.
Table 4: Example of targets set for schools in the UK in 2012 with two typical school configurations (adapted from NEN)
School Devices 2012 Down/Upload Projected 2017
Secondary 50 10 Mbps / 2.5 Mbps 35 Mbps / 8 Mbps
Primary 10 2 Mbps / 512 Kbps 7 Mbps / 2 Mbps
4 http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/broadband 5 http://www.nen.gov.uk/advice/selecting-broadband-connectivity-for-your-school
PAGE 15 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Fiji’s state of ICT integration into education is probably not as high as it was in the UK in 2012. However, it would seem that, at the current state of play in the better-connected areas of Fiji, these limits are not out of the question; in fact, they might be already achievable (although further research would need to confirm that). It is necessary to also make some assumptions about the numbers of access devices – computers and tablets – connected to the Internet in typical Fijian schools. The numbers of computers in the two examples in Table 4 seem quite generous. For instance, few secondary schools would have as many as 50 computers including a lab and administrative computers. From observations made and the FEMIS data on computer labs, it seems fair to assume that most primary schools do not have more than 10 computers being used on a daily basis.
However, even 2Mbps may be an unrealistic target for schools in rural areas at the fringes of mobile coverage, remote schools with no coverage and some outer islands schools. The targets mentioned above are minimum (or CIR), and connectivity in weak coverage areas can be very variable and intermittent. In areas where satellite connectivity is used, cost of bandwidth is also a constraint. For we found that Telekom Fiji’s 256Kbps 30GB VTSAT service, although good value, is only just affordable for small primary schools.
We need targets that reflect this situation. Australia has taken such an approach, whereby 90% of schools should attain one standard, with a lower standard for the remaining 10%6. Higher targets can be set in future years as improvements are made by the providers.
This analysis leads to the following targets suggested to MoE for broadband speeds in Fijian schools.
Table 5: Suggested broadband targets for schools
School level School type 2017 target 2022 target Broadband type
Secondary 90% of schools 10 Mbps / 2.5 Mbps 40 Mbps / 10 Mbps Dedicated/unlimited
Primary 90% of schools 2 Mbps / 512 Kbps 10 Mbps / 2.5 Mbps Mobile or dedicated
Secondary Remaining 10% 1 Mbps / 256 Kbps 5 Mbps / 1.5 Mbps Dedicated/unlimited
Primary Remaining 10% 256 Kbps / 64 Kbps 1 Mbps / 256 Kbps Mobile or dedicated
Mobile Internet is variable, and in a good area, 3G and 4G connections should be able to attain these targets. Minimum targets for data quotas also need to be taken into account with mobile plans. For dedicated connections, the targets shown can be specified with 1:1 contention or a higher speed, but with contention.
6 http://connectaschool.org/itu-module/1/56/3-3-1-Technologie-large-bande
PAGE 16 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The overall quality of service (QoS) is also important. A single test of broadband speeds at a school may not detect time varying qualities. Therefore, verification of the stability of school connections should be made by repeating tests over a sufficient period of time (one might even build this feature into FEMIS and collect the data as a quality indicator).
Importantly, we should note that there are other factors that impact on the quality of connectivity. These are derived from the actual experience of schools, which is described in the case studies in Annex 11.
Important in these definitions is ownership. Ownership is related to the permanence of the connectivity. Schools which are seeking to improve quality of education and student success should be taking ownership of the connectivity issue, as it is key to meeting their needs. Therefore, the study looked for evidence of school planning and management support for improving connectivity. If personal devices are being used, it indicates that connectivity is not being prioritised.
Availability is an interesting quality of connectivity. There can be a dynamic or trade-off between cost and accessibility. For instance, schools using generators can only use them a few hours per day. If the modem, VSAT or LAN does not have an independent power supply then access is being restricted. Likewise, if the school is not able to monitor usage, they may fear that they will incur excess charges – this is especially a factor with VSAT. This means that the connectivity is not being optimised, and students and teachers will not benefit as much as they could. It can impact on women users – if the power is only on in the evenings, girls and women may have duties or cultural restrictions that prevent them accessing the facilities at those times. If access is at a premium, the school may decide not to allow community access and thus another important quality vector is being denied.
For these reasons, the recommendation is made that all schools relying on generators should have independent solar power supplies for their Internet and LAN equipment (and preferably one PC).
The additional criteria for “sustainable, permanent Internet connectivity” are recommended in Table 6.
Table 6: Additional criteria for sustainable permanent connectivity for schools
Acceptable Unacceptable Stable connection (see QoS definitions above) Individual use / school not taking ownership Sufficient bandwidth (speed) Tethering, personal dongles, 2G Available when needed Patchy, only available certain places Can be distributed (local network) Intermittent Can be monitored (usage) Weather dependent (with some allowance for Can easily be paid for (prepaid/post-paid) rain fade with Ku and Ka VSATs) Schools can choose plans that fit their budgets Not available when needed most (generator) Ownership is clear (i.e. owned by school and Needs special technical skills to maintain integrated into school planning) Other (protections, filtering, security, etc.) Upgrade/growth path Maintenance skills can easily be transferred Total cost of ownership including power, access devices, support, is sustainable
PAGE 17 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
5 Survey of school connectivity
A definitive assessment would require a technical survey visit to several hundred schools. As this was not possible for time and budgetary reasons, the approach taken was to survey schools via FEMIS and consultations with District Education Officers (DEOs). Along with information obtained from the ISPs, this data could be triangulated to build a picture of current school connectivity with some degree of confidence.
5.1 Consultations with Divisional and District EOs
The central layer of management in the education system occurs at the level of the Divisions and Districts. Especially in the case of District Offices, the officers have day-to-day dealings with their schools. Therefore, senior officers (as available) were interviewed in each of the four Divisions, and a list of schools was prepared reflecting their local knowledge of the schools that do not have sufficient connectivity.
The process involved working directly with officers where possible, and by providing each District Office with a form in which to compile lists of schools in the following categories: schools that are in good coverage areas but are not connected schools with some mobile network coverage but intermittent, unreliable or patchy schools where they can update FEMIS but have to travel a distance away to “catch a signal” schools using satellite (VSAT) schools using special equipment.
Another indicator of school connectivity known by the District Offices is whether schools are opting to download their exams (exam delivery mode), rather than have hard copies sent to them. As this is time- critical, it implies a high level of confidence in their connections. However, some schools opt for hard copies for other reasons, as will be seen in the case studies.
Each District has its own characteristics and the District Officers approached the problem in different ways. The Nadroga-Navosa DEO has relatively good access to all his schools, and many are in areas with the best 4G mobile coverage. He was able to identify a short list of individual schools where he had firsthand knowledge of the problems faced, and where there was insufficient connectivity. The Northern Division Education Officer has already been investigating this issue himself and listed for us all his schools with categories “intermittent” and “no Internet”. The Nausori DEO suggested using a list of schools indicating the choices they had made for exam delivery. Schools who opt for online delivery, where exam papers are downloaded “just in time” on the day of the exams, need to be very confident that they will be able to do so. These schools were, therefore, assumed to have good connectivity. We focused on the remainder which were interpreted with the help of local knowledge, and a list was compiled. Eastern Division has particular circumstances with isolated islands, some of which have no mobile network presence. Most of the schools with no other option than VSAT are located in this division. The author met with the DEO, and a list of schools that they knew had no connectivity was compiled. They also provided information on schools with “intermittent” connectivity.
PAGE 18 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
A form was sent out to those District Officers who we were not able to meet with in person. This included all of Western Division and Suva.
This exercise yielded a list of 230 schools summarised in Table 7. The list of all 230 schools is in Annex 2.
Table 7: Numbers of schools with inadequate connectivity as judged by District Officers
District No connectivity Poor/intermittent Has to go to nearby Total connectivity location to find a mobile signal
Ba-Tavua 0 11 4
Cakaudrove 15 19 (5) 5 (1) 39
Eastern 25 - - 25
Lautoka/Nadi/Yasawa 4 (2) 12 (1) 3 19
Macuata-Bua 24 26 (7) - 50
Nadroga-Navosa 2 7 0 9
Nausori 3 37 - 40
Ra 0 23 (1) 4 27
Suva 6 (1) - - 6
Total 79 135 16 230 (3 secondary) (14 secondary) (1 secondary) (18 secondary) Note: Figures in brackets are the numbers of secondary schools included in the totals.
5.2 FEMIS survey
This study made use of the Fiji Education Management Information System (FEMIS). FEMIS is now a day-to- day feature of school administration, and schools are required to update it with daily attendance and other information. There is not 100% compliance as some schools have no Internet access within reach of the school and have to submit their data in paper form.
FEMIS contains a survey tool, allowing the central administration to create surveys with either Y/N answers or with short text answers. It has been developed and trialled successfully to obtain data on the impacts on schools of Tropical Cyclone Winston, which ravaged Fiji in March 2016.
During preliminary desk work, a set of 31 questions requiring Y/N answers was prepared, along with a set of 9 questions requiring short text answers. The questions were designed to clarify the connectivity status of the school, the various access technologies that the school uses or has tried out, and also to obtain data related to financial, organisational and social factors associated with sustainable connectivity as discussed in Section 3.
PAGE 19 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The questions and responses are provided in Annexes 3 and 4. They were grouped around the following themes. Access and mobile network coverage – stability, strength, extent. If the school officer needs to travel outside the school to “catch a signal”; modems/access devices used; ISPs; plans; and monthly spend Who has access – admin, teachers, students and communities Power supply – Fiji Electricity Authority (FEA), own generator or solar power Usage – how the Internet is used for curricular and/or operational purposes ICT infrastructure at the school – computer labs School outreach – websites and social media pages
The survey was set up in FEMIS by the author with much welcome assistance from the FEMIS team. The schools were alerted to the survey in an email sent out by the MoE with an instruction sheet. Schools unable to access FEMIS because there is no Internet available locally were unable to complete the survey. However, those schools are well known by the District Offices.
Of the 907 primary and secondary schools, 487 (54%) responded to the Y/N survey. Of those, 389 (43%) also repsonded to the text questions survey. Approximately 10 days were allowed for the responses following an email sent out by MoE to all schools. Table 8 shows a detail from the aggregated responses to the 31 Y/N questions.
Table 8: Detail from the aggregated Y/N survey responses
Comments on reliability of the Survey Question Y N U % Y results
Can you access the Internet from your Assumed reliable as the question is 1 469 18 0 96% school in any way? clear and unambiguous
If not, did the school have access to The question may be difficult to 2 231 114 142 47% Internet in the past? understand.
Do you access Internet at your school with 3 a post-paid account (answer no for 242 235 10 50% prepaid)?
Unreliable. It appears "Fixed" may Does your school have a fixed wireless be interpreted variously. Result is 4 connection (wireless equipment installed 304 181 2 62% inconsistent with modem ownership by the provider)? (see text questions).
Does your school use an LTE or 4G Fairly consistent with text answers 5 347 123 17 71% modem for accessing Internet? (78% modem ownership).
Do teachers use their own devices for 6 Internet at the school (phone, dongle or 306 177 4 63% USB stick)?
Is your main means of connecting to It is a simple question although 7 Internet mostly reliable (answer or 369 107 11 76% somewhat open to interpretation. unreliable)? Assumed reliable.
PAGE 20 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The responses illustrate a problem with conducting a survey in this way. Without a uniform definition of “school connectivity”, its interpretation is subjective. Some comments on the reliability of the data are included in the table.
Following examination of the responses, it was decided that the responses to the Y/N survey questions 1 and 7 were the most reliable indicators of the connectivity at the school. For the responses to the nine questions in the text answer survey, Question 5 is the most pertinent. The aggregated responses are summarised below.
Table 9: Summary of responses to FEMIS text Question 5 (389 responses)
Q5. How do you describe the quality of Internet access at the school, unstable and intermittent / stable but slow / stable and fair?
None 6 2%
Poor at times / Unstable 41 11%
Stable but slow 90 23%
Stable and Fair / Reasonable / Satisfactory 218 56%
Good / Excellent 33 8%
Unclear 1 0%
This result gives a clear indication of the scale of numbers involved in each category. The category “slow but stable” indicates the connectivity is probably not reaching the minimum levels compliant with the targets outlined in Section 4.4. For instance, a small school that is able to update FEMIS reliably, but not connect multiple users or use online multimedia as may be required to meet other needs may regard that as “stable but slow”. So a percentage of that category is likely to be in need of improvement. This gives us a range of about 13–20% of schools, or 120–190 schools.
A complete analysis of the aggregated responses to the 31 Y/N and 9 text questions is attached in Annexes 3 and 4. The discussion goes beyond the scope of this study but may be useful to the MoE for general purposes, as well as providing useful context. The data on individual schools was then cross-referenced with the lists of schools contributed by the DEOs as described in Section 5.5.
5.3 Schools using VSAT
Schools with VSATs are all using Telekom Fiji’s “VTSAT” system (described in Section 6). Telekom Fiji Limited (TFL) provided a list of all schools with VTSAT, including those shared with a community through the government e-community program.
From this list, a summary was made, as shown in Table 10. The full list of schools is given in Annex 5.
PAGE 21 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Table 10: TFL data on schools with VSATs (VTSAT Ku-band)
School owned E-community
Western 6 1
Central 13 5
Northern 4 0
Eastern 16 17
Total 39 23
Total VTSAT 62
Having a VSAT according to this data does not indicate for sure that the school has connectivity. As will be seen in the case studies, a school can have a VSAT but it can be unused for long periods due to technical or budget problems that the school has not managed to overcome. However, unless the equipment is damaged, it is usually straightforward to set up connectivity.
For Eastern District, TFL reported 16 schools with its VTSAT solution. Additionally, 17 schools are sharing a VTSAT service with the e-community program. Table 11 shows the status of these schools.
Table 11: Schools in Eastern Division that own a VSAT or that have access to a community VSAT
School or e-community Status No. of Reason/comments owned VSAT schools School Active 9 Working and being used for Internet access Inactive but school has 6 Damaged by TC Winston, but school has other means of access access via Digicel (2) Bill not paid, but school has access via Digicel (1) Technical problems, but schools have access via Vodafone (2) Technical reasons, school has Digicel access but at a distance (1) Inactive and school has 1 Technical reasons, school has no Internet no Internet access eCommunity Active 13 Working and being used for Internet access Active but school does not 1 Digicel mobile service is available use it VSAT is voice only, school 1 School does not have access to Internet has no Internet access Inactive but school has 1 Digicel mobile service is available other means of access Inactive and school has no 1 Bill not paid Internet
PAGE 22 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
This data shows that of the 33 Eastern Division schools that own a VSAT or have access to a community VSAT,: 10 are still dependent on the VSATs 6 now have other cheaper means 1 school needs their VSAT repairing, and has no other means of Internet access 2 schools do not enjoy shared VSAT access with their community due to reasons that the community need to sort out (unpaid bill, voice only service) 13 schools, including the 2 above, do not have Internet access on the premises.
Thus, immediate attention is needed for 3 schools, while 13 schools need longer-term solutions to provide more convenient Internet access at the school.
5.4 Case studies
It was important to visit a set of representative schools to understand their experiences and challenges. These mini case studies provide richer information and important lessons learned. The head teachers / principals were interviewed and allowed to tell their stories regarding connectivity. The interviews were unstructured but elicited information on their experiences loosely based around the four dimensions of sustainability described above.
If they have Internet, how was it brought about Access – the standard of connectivity, technologies used or tried, coverage, how the connectivity is used School planning and policies concerning the Internet; support from management; training, technical support availability and local capacity Financial matters; monthly spending and how the costs are perceived and prioritised Needs for connectivity – how the school is interpreting requirements related to connectivity including online exam delivery (discussed further below) Any other relevant information concerning needs, problems, and challenges but also successes and good examples that can be passed on
The author visited a total of 13 schools – 8 in Viti Levu and 5 in Vanua Levu. One additional school head teacher was interviewed at a District Office.
Schools that were representative of particular categories were selected. These included the following: very remote schools with good, and unreliable coverage schools using solar power an urban school in good coverage that presents an example of managing connectivity successfully a school with VSAT satellite access a school hosting a Government Telecentres (GTCs) other special categories identified in discussions with the Education Officers.
The important lessons learned from the case studies are described in full, with photographs, in Annex 11.
PAGE 23 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The locations of the case study schools are shown on the maps below.
Figure 1: Locations of the schools visited for the mini case studies (Ratu Luke was not visited)
PAGE 24 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
5.5 Triangulation of the data
The results from the consultations with Divisional and District Officers and the FEMIS survey results were compared at the level of individual schools to build confidence in the number of schools that need better connectivity.
The following data sets are available for this comparison. List of 230 schools which the Divisional and District Officers have flagged as having no / intermittent connectivity. The list is derived from all primary and secondary schools (n=907). List of 18 schools from the FEMIS Y/N survey, which replied “no” to Question 1, Can you access the Internet from your school in any way? (n=469). List of 107 schools from the FEMIS Y/N survey, which replied “no” to Question 7, Is your main means of connecting to Internet mostly reliable? (n=469) List of schools from the FEMIS text survey, which replied with the following answers to Question 5, How do you describe the quality of Internet access at the school, unstable and intermittent / stable but slow / stable and fair? (n=389) o None: 6 schools o Poor / unstable: 41 schools o Stable but slow: 90 schools.
Comparing these data sets, we have the following results. 54 schools that are listed by the DEOs and also flagged by the schools themselves as having no, poor, or slow connectivity. This data set is most reliable and these schools can be prioritised. The list of schools is provided in Annex 6. 176 schools that are listed by the DEOs but which did not respond to the FEMIS survey. Of these, some are schools where there is no Internet access in the locality. We should regard this data as less reliable than the above, but note especially those schools where it is established that there is no connection available (especially parts of Cakaudrove, Macuata-Bua and Eastern Division). 81 schools that responded to the FEMIS survey that they have “unstable” or “unreliable” Internet access but which are not flagged by the DEOs. This list is based on a “No” response to either of Y/N Question 1 or Question 7 or an appropriate response to text Question 5. We can regard this data as medium-high reliability because it is directly from the schools. 62 schools that responded to the FEMIS survey indicating they have “stable but slow” Internet access but which are not flagged by the DEOs. This list is based on “no” responses to Y/N Questions 1 or 7 and an appropriate response to text Question 5. We can regard this data as medium-high reliability because it is directly from the schools.
PAGE 25 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
5.6 Prioritised lists of schools that need improved connectivity
We can further break down the survey results, described in Section 5.5, into two categories, namely: 1. Schools with no connectivity at all. These schools need professional surveys to determine whether a microwave link is possible to any available ISP, and failing that, a VSAT would be required. 2. Schools that have some connectivity but it is poor. Most of these schools could benefit from a technical solution as described in Section 6, or failing a successful outcome, they should have surveys conducted to determine whether a microwave link is possible, or a VSAT is needed.
Furthermore, we can prioritise the lists according to the following basis: 1. TOP PRIORITY is assigned to schools that both the DEOs and the FEMIS survey indicated have no connectivity at all, plus schools that DEOs have selected based on first-hand knowledge that have no connectivity 1. HIGH PRIORITY is assigned to schools that both the DEOs and the FEMIS survey confirmed have poor/intermittent connectivity, including schools that DEOs identified based on close local knowledge of the school 2. MEDIUM PRIORITY for schools that responded in the FEMIS survey as having poor/intermittent connectivity, but this was not confirmed by the DEOs. In addition, the schools identified at Divisional level as having “intermittent” access, but which did not respond to the FEMIS survey. 3. LOWER PRIORITY for schools that responded in the FEMIS survey that they have stable but slow connectivity.
From the analysis above, the final list of schools needing improvements is summarised in Table 12. Full lists of the schools prioritised in the above manner are provided in Annexes 7 to 10.
Table 12: Summary of schools that need improved connectivity
Need No Have to Total Primary Secondary Intermittent dedicated connectivity travel solar Top 79 75 4 79 - - 64 Priority High 100 91 9 5 16 84 55 Priority Medium 130 113 17 5 1 124 42 Priority 62 Lower 62 52 10 - - (stable but 12 Priority slow)
The right hand column follows from the definition for minimum standard of connectivity, as developed above, where it was concluded that all schools using generators should be equipped with dedicated solar supplies for their Internet and LAN equipment (including local Wi-Fi).
PAGE 26 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
We have learned from the case studies that we cannot assume existing school solar power supplies are in good condition or have spare capacity. Therefore, even where schools have existing general purpose solar power, we recommend separate supplies for the access equipment.
Figure 2: The top priority schools that have no connectivity
PAGE 27 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
6 Recommended access technology for schools
The schools identified in the survey fall into the following categories.
No connectivity at all, or in the locality (for instance on some outer islands with no mobile towers). In this situation, the only short-term option will be VSAT. To mitigate against the high cost of VSAT, it is important that all other options (including dedicated microwave links) have been exhausted before committing to it. A consideration is the growth of mobile networks. For instance, of 16 schools in Eastern Division with VTSATs, 6 are now able to access the Digicel network and the VSAT is redundant. Another possibility is that a VSAT shared with a school under the government’s e-community initiative could be relocated from elsewhere to the school by mutual agreement with the community.
No connectivity on campus but mobile networks have presence in the locality. In this situation, a professional survey by the network operators would identify whether a microwave link is possible. If not, VSAT will be required. ISPs may do surveys for free assuming the school signs up for the service.
Schools have some mobile network coverage on campus but it is weak, patchy or intermittent. This is the largest category of schools, and also the hardest to definitively match with a solution. Mobile coverage, even in good areas is not uniform and there are local weak spots. It is highly site specific, and coverage maps from ISPs only give a general impression of area coverage.
A range of access technologies were observed during the school visits, and are discussed in Annex 12.
Fiji schools located in the fringing coverage of mobile networks commonly find that the signal reception is weak and variable, with certain locations on the school campus being better than others. A solution in such cases is to locate the modem where the signal is most stable and to optimise the reception by placing it outside, and as high as convenient. Once located in this optimal position, the connection needs to be accessible all over the school and thus a router with Wi-Fi and a network port for expansion is needed. Many modems come with these features. A 3G/4G dongle does not have a router but can be paired with available devices.
Additionally, the signal-to-noise ratio can be increased further, if necessary, by connecting an external high gain antenna. Most modems have external antenna ports. This is even the case for some 3/4G dongles. 4G and LTE modems can accept multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) antennas, which make use of the spacial diversity of the signal. An example of a dongle with a MIMO panel antenna attached is shown in Figure 3. The Telecommunication Authory of Fiji (TAF) classes external antennas as accessories, and they do not need licenses.
PAGE 28 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Figure 3: 4G dongle with external MIMO antenna (left) and high gain external antenna used at Nabala school, installed by Webteck
These two approaches together, i.e. locating the modem in the best fixed position (outdoors if necessary) and using a high gain device with external antenna if necessary, will make a big difference to Internet stability and speed in these schools.
A Labasa company, Webteck, is offering this kind of solution using their own design, as observed at Nabala Secondary School (see Figure 3 and the case study in Annex 11). This involves a high gain parabolic antenna connected to a modem. Effectively, this is an external antenna for the modem but is a fixed installation with the very high gain antenna mounted in the location where the network reception is stable. The modem is connected to the school’s LAN with a Wi-Fi bridge. However, the modem is indoors with the antenna mounted outdoors, connected with a fairly long cable. Cables with these frequencies can be very lossy and inefficient. Therefore, it is better to place the whole modem outdoors, avoiding cable losses.
These solutions suit schools with “poor, unstable, intermittent” mobile connections. They will not work if there is no detectable signal. Should these solutions be insufficient, a professional survey will be required before committing to more expensive solutions, such as VSAT. Regardless of whether these are fixed, these solutions are still “seen” by the network as mobile devices, and are subject to the cell size settings of the ISP (maximum permissible distance a device can connect to a tower). This is a parameter related to ISP capacity, and not available to the public.
Two examples of the recommended solutions for schools with “poor/intermittent” connectivity are described below. Both solutions use the mobile networks and, therefore, SIM cards and standard ISP plans.
6.1 Option 1: Low cost method using a 4G dongle and router
This method uses a dongle as the modem and pairs it with a USB router that incorporates a Wi-Fi hotspot and a network port for expansion. The SIM card is inserted into the dongle.
Using the dongle as the modem means that it can easily be placed outside in a suitable waterproof case. It is ultra compact and low cost. Compared to keeping the modem indoors with an external antenna connected with a cable, it is much more efficient as cable losses are avoided.
PAGE 29 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The device is powered through the micro-USB port with a standard USB adapter. If mounted outside, a longer USB cable can be used to power it with an Ethernet cable run down to an indoor router if needed.
The gains from this approach are obtained by compounding all the advantages, i.e. locating it where the signal is strongest, putting it outdoors, minimising RF cable losses, elevating the antenna. This option could be installed by any local IT company or even a local electrician.
The retail cost of this solution is estimated as below (Ali Express): Huawei 3372 LTE dongle USD 39 Huawei AF23 USB sharing dock, router, Ethernet, Wi-Fi hotspot access point USD 50 Waterproof outdoor equipment case (typical price) USD 10 Total cost in USD USD 70 Estimated cost retail in Fiji (assuming mark up, shipping and taxes) FJD 250-500
An external MIMO antenna such as the one shown in Figure 2 (3G/4G/LTE MIMO panel antenna) can be added for extra gain. These are more expensive, however, the example shown retails at around USD 190. Most 4G modems, including the USB modem, have two MIMO antenna ports. Note that the AF23 only accepts Huawei dongles. When choosing the dongle, be aware that it should support the frequency bands used by Fijian ISPs. If possible, try out a dongle sold by the network provider you wish to use.
Figure 4: USB modem dock with integrated router and Wi-Fi hotspot
6.2 Option 2: High performance outdoor modem with Wi-Fi
This method is, in principle, using the same approach. However, in this case, more robust and high performance ISP-grade equipment is used. As with the previous option, the device should be mounted where the mobile signal reception is strongest. The Internet connection can then be distributed and accessed via the integrated Wi-Fi and/or a wired Ethernet LAN.
There are various manufacturers of unlocked, 3G/4G/LTE modems with extra sensitivity and gain such as the model illustrated in Figure 5. The example shown here is supplied by an Australian specialist company, DuxTel.
PAGE 30 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Figure 5: Example of an ISP grade outdoor cellular modem/router/Wi-Fi solution DuxCel-OUT with high gain multiband antenna (800–2600 MHz)
The DuxCel-OUT incorporates a high quality modem with better performance than a standard table-top modem, shipped with a high gain multiband antenna. Overall, it should give better than 9dBi signal reception improvement plus the gains from elevating it and placing it in the optimum location outdoors. It supports the frequency bands (3G, 4G and LTE) used in Fiji.
The solution is a complete package with integrated modem, router, high performance Wi-Fi hotspot with port for expansion, and can be powered via Ethernet (PoE).
Thus, it can be mounted up a mast or pole where, not only will it give excellent mobile network reception compared to an indoor modem, but the Wi-Fi hotspot will be extensive and reach a wide area of the campus. It can also be connected to the school LAN. The robust outdoor cabinet comes with brackets for pole or wall mounting.
Installation is also very simple, but it is recommended that an IT professional from a local support company assists schools in locating the best position to mount the device, run the Ethernet PoE cables and configure it.
PAGE 31 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The retail cost of this solution is estimated as below (DuxTel):
DuxCell outdoor 3G/LTE Cellular Wi-Fi router with 4G card includes high gain multiband yagi antenna, power over Ethernet adapter, waterproof outdoor equipment case and brackets AUD 600 Estimated cost retail in Fiji (assuming mark up, shipping and taxes) FJD 1800 Estimated cost including professional installation FJD 2500 – 3500
The recommended approach is: to invite local companies to supply and support these solutions and their own innovations (tender with generic specification) District Offices to have samples for testing schools to try out these solutions and conduct a standard test.
If the solutions do not work well, the next step is to approach the ISPs to conduct professional surveys to determine if a microwave link can be provided, and if this is unsuccessful, then installing a VSAT.
6.3 Microwave links (fixed wireless broadband)
Wherever there is mobile coverage and approximate line of sight with a tower, it is possible for the ISP to provide a fixed link using small directional antenna as shown in Figure 6. Moreover, a fixed link is not subject to the cell size limitation of the mobile network and can work over long distances. A dedicated link can provide guaranteed service levels (i.e. download speeds), and unlimited plans are most commonly sold. These terms are ideal for large schools and secondary schools.
Figure 6: A dedicated microwave link (Digicel) at Wainimala School Government Telecentre (left). Typical small panel antenna equipment installed on a building (centre and right).
PAGE 32 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
This solution may also be possible even if there is no mobile signal reception at all, although it may be necessary to install masts or additional towers to achieve the line of sight. All the main ISPs offer this solution. However, it is highly dependent on the site. Therefore, we can only give estimates of the cost of surveys and hardware requirements. The cost of a survey would also be dependent on the remoteness of the site. Should the survey determine that a link is possible, the equipment costs are not high – typically a few hundred FJD, but if a tower is needed, the costs will be more significant.
On the other hand, ISPs offering a service may not even charge for the survey if the schools sign up for it. This can only be known when a request for a commercial service is made. It will only be possible to determine how many surveys are needed after schools first try out the other options recommended here.
6.4 VSAT
Satellite Internet services are generally available over all of Fiji equally, unlike mobile networks. The most common VSAT service used by schools is TFL’s VTSAT Ku-band product and service. TFL’s schedule of costs for VTSAT is attached as Annex 13.
VTSAT can be bought outright for FJD 18,000 with solar power and including installation, or FJD 11,000 without solar power. It can also be leased, which is an option suitable for a larger school with a higher ICT budget.
Figure 7: VTSAT at Natutale PS, Nadroga-Navosa
Satellite Internet is much more expensive than terrestrial, and schools should exhaust all other possibilities first. They should also find out if the mobile operators are planning new coverage in their area in future that would render the VSAT redundant.
Ku-band VSATs suffer from “rain fade” and can lose connectivity for periods of a few minutes at a time during very heavy rain. Typically, bandwidth speeds affordable for schools are lower, in the 256–512 kbps range. Maximum throughput for TFL’s VTSAT platform is to be increased to 6Mbps.
PAGE 33 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
An alternative satellite broadband platform worth mentioning is Kacific7. Although this may not be available until 2019, it is significant as it will use Ka-band which requires only small, low-cost terminals. It will be much cheaper and easier to install than those currently available, and yet with high throughput (up to 40Mbps). Bandwidth costs will be much lower than current VSAT services. This means Kacific will be a unique product suitable for schools where there is no cheaper terrestrial option. Kacific will need to have a reseller to be available in Fiji.
6.5 ISP data
Coverage maps for all providers are available on the ISP websites. As stated above, coverage maps are of limited use, as local geography and other factors can make a big difference, especially in the fringing coverage areas where most of the affected schools find themselves.
TFL provided extensive information on schools served by its VTSAT solution. Digicel and Kidanet were consulted and contacted in follow up, but they did not provide any information additional to their public websites. Vodafone provided additional coverage maps (although they were not high resolution), and some other information on schools they serve.
The list of 79 Top Priority schools with no connectivity was sent to the four main ISPs. They were asked if they could indicate which sites they might reach with terrestrial links. Only Vodafone responded, indicating 16 schools where a link with their towers may be possible (see the full list with Vodafone’s comments in Annex 7).
This is useful data for the pilot project that is suggested (see Next Steps, Section 9).
The other mobile network operators who did not respond may be able to link several of the remaining schools, but surveys would be needed to confirm it, and the remaining schools would be candidates for VSATs. For the purposes of estimating costs, it is assumed that an equal number of schools could be reached by the other operators as Vodafone.
7 www.kacific.com
PAGE 34 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
7 Estimated costs
The costs of deploying the recommended solutions to the prioritised lists of schools are shown in Table 13, based on the assumptions made above.
Table 13: Cost estimates for the Top priority list of schools
A. TOP PRIORITY SCHOOLS (79 SCHOOLS WITH NO CONNECTIVITY)
Description Est. cost School Assumption Estimated Cost per unit budget or number of estimate central schools funding
Microwave ISP installed Assume A central fund Vodafone say they 32 160,000 link system requiring FJD 5,000 for surveys can provide survey would be microwave links for advantageous 16 schools (see Annex 7). We assume that other ISPs can link a similar number.
VTSAT Ku- Outright purchase FJD Central All other schools 47 846,000 band VSAT with solar power, 18,000 funding or will need VSATs. satellite including government broadband installation VTSAT service. programs
Dedicated 500Wh system Central All schools that do 64 160,000 solar power (200W solar FJD 2500 funding is not have FEA supply for panel, 100Ah gel needed to power. modem and battery, 300W ensure router inverter, regular) schools do (access and and estimated not avoid this network installation costs requirement equipment)
TOTAL FJD 1,166,000
PAGE 35 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Table 14: Cost estimates for the High priority list of schools
B. HIGH PRIORITY SCHOOLS (100 SCHOOLS) With these schools, the emphasis is on improving reception with mobile networks.
Description Est. cost School budget Assumption Estimated Cost per unit or central number of estimate funding schools
3G/4G/LTE Low-cost option FJD 500 Affordable for 10% of schools 10 5,000 USB modem where schools any school from with router, improve mobile their ICT budget. Wi-Fi access network Can be self point and reception managed by outdoor themselves (e.g. schools. mounting external case antenna, USB modem with router etc.)
Fixed cellular High FJD 3,500 This is 75% of schools 75 262,500 outdoor performance affordable for 3/4G/LTE outdoor modem larger schools modem with including from their ICT multiband installation. budgets. high gain Alternatively an Smaller schools antenna, existing local would require router and solution with assistance. Wi-Fi hotspot external fixed antenna
Microwave ISP installed Assume A central fund 10% of schools 10 50,000 link system requiring FJD 5,000 for surveys. survey
VTSAT Ku- Outright FJD Central funding 5% of schools 5 90,000 band VSAT purchase with 18,000 or government satellite solar power, VTSAT broadband including programs. service installation
Dedicated 500Wh system FJD 2500 Central funding All schools that do 55 137,500 solar power (200W solar is needed to not have FEA supply for panel, 100Ah ensure schools power. modem and gel battery, do not avoid this router 300W inverter, requirement. (access and regular) and network estimated equipment) installation costs
TOTAL FJD 545,000
PAGE 36 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Table 15: Cost estimates for the Medium priority list of schools
C. MEDIUM PRIORITY SCHOOLS (130 SCHOOLS)
Description Est. cost School budget Assumption Estimated Cost per unit or central number of estimate funding schools
3G/4G/LTE Low-cost option FJD 500 Affordable for 10% of schools 13 6,500 USB modem where schools any school from with router, improve mobile their ICT budget. Wi-Fi access network Can be self point and reception managed by outdoor themselves (e.g. schools. mounting external case antenna, USB modem with router etc.)
Fixed cellular High FJD 3,500 This is 75% of schools 98 343,000 outdoor performance affordable for 3/4G/LTE outdoor modem larger schools modem with including from their ICT multiband installation. budgets. high gain Alternatively an Smaller schools antenna, existing local would require router and solution with assistance. Wi-Fi hotspot external fixed antenna
Microwave ISP installed Assume A central fund 10% of schools 13 65,000 link system requiring FJD 5,000 for surveys. survey
VTSAT Ku- Outright FJD 18,000 Central funding 5% of schools 6 108,000 band VSAT purchase with or government satellite solar power, VTSAT broadband including programs. service installation
Dedicated 500Wh system Central funding All schools that 46 115,000 solar power (200W solar FJD 2500 is needed to do not have FEA supply for panel, 100Ah ensure schools power modem and gel battery, do not avoid this router 300W inverter, requirement. (access and regular) and network estimated equipment) installation costs
TOTAL FJD 637,500
PAGE 37 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Table 16: Cost estimates for the Lower priority list of schools
D. LOWER PRIORITY SCHOOLS (62 SCHOOLS) These schools have a stable connection but it is slow.
Description Est. cost School budget Assumption Estimated Cost per unit or central number of estimate funding schools
3G/4G/LTE Low-cost option FJD 500 Affordable for 10% of schools 6 3,000 USB modem where schools any school from with router, improve mobile their ICT budget. Wi-Fi access network reception Can be self point and themselves (e.g. managed by outdoor external antenna, schools. mounting USB modem with case router etc.)
Fixed cellular High performance FJD 3,500 This is 90% of schools 56 196,000 outdoor outdoor modem affordable for 3/4G/LTE including larger schools modem with installation. from their ICT multiband Alternatively an budgets. high gain existing local Smaller schools antenna, solution with would require router and external fixed assistance. Wi-Fi hotspot antenna
Dedicated 500Wh system FJD 2500 Central funding All schools that 12 30,000 solar power (200W solar is needed to do not have FEA supply for panel, 100Ah gel ensure schools power. modem and battery, 300W do not avoid this router inverter, regular) requirement. (access and and estimated network installation costs equipment)
TOTAL FJD 229,000
PAGE 38 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The range of cost estimates for all of the priority areas is summarised in Table 17.
Table 17: Cost estimates summary
Number of schools Cost estimate (FJD)
Top Priority Schools Schools identified by both the DEOs and FEMIS survey as 79 1,166,000 having “no” connectivity.
High Priority Schools Schools identified by both the DEOs and FEMIS survey as 100 545,000 having “poor/intermittent” connectivity.
Medium Priority Mostly schools in the “intermittent” category and those where 130 637,500 the data is less reliable (i.e. not confirmed by another source).
Lower Priority These are the schools that do have some stable connectivity 62 229,000 but they report that it is slow.
TOTALS 371 2,577,500
Low estimate (see note below) 1,876,500
Note: The estimated total cost is a cautious estimate. It is sensitive to the assumptions made about the prices for equipment, installation and surveys that will only be known after a competitive tender process.
To test the sensitivity of the cost estimate, the assumed prices were varied as follows:
Table 18: Assumptions made in testing the sensitivity of cost estimates
Assumed price Low price
High performance outdoor modem including $3,500 $2,500 installation
Survey and installation of a microwave link by ISP $5,000 $0 (this may not cost anything if the school signs up for a suitable plan)
Solar power package for the Internet/Wi-Fi including $2,500 $1,500 installation
Using the “low price” estimate for equipment and installation results in the “low estimate” shown in Table 17.
PAGE 39 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
8 Recommendations
Recommendation 1 A market-based, bottom-up approach to planning school connectivity is the most sustainable in Fiji, given the current state of the telecommunication environment. This should be complemented with a top-down “push” and coordination where necessary. Schools have demonstrated the capacity to seek out the most appropriate solutions driven by their needs, but sometimes they get “stuck” and need some guidance.
Many of the schools with issues only need pointing in the right direction. For example, Wainimala school’s government telecentre has a very simple problem (overgrown trees) but a breakdown of communication led to the centre being offline for months. DEOs can have a role in mediation.
Recommendation 2 Embed guidance on recommended solutions, good practice and models for school connectivity improvement at the District level. Provide advice on recommended approaches and good practices, and provide oversight by DEOs so that the standards are maintained.
Recommendation 3 Commission surveys by ISPs before committing to VSATs. On the outer islands, some have a mobile presence that might be extended using more efficient terrestrial connections (microwave links). This is a consideration mainly for Eastern Division.
PAGE 40 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Recommendation 4 Provide generic specifications of recommended access solutions and the recommended process (good practices) to be followed by schools. Schools should be encouraged to try out recommended solutions and not just wait for help from a central fund. Not all will incur high costs to fix the issue. This advice could be circulated to all district offices.
Recommendation 5 MoE should consider acquiring some samples of the recommended solutions to test. These can also be issued to the Divisional offices for their evaluation. Consider a pilot program to test the enhanced cellular solutions, and a few evaluations/survey of schools by ISPs to develop knowledge of the microwave link options available.
Recommendation 6 Invite local companies to share what they can offer, and to support and supply recommended solutions. The importance of this is illustrated in our case study where Nabala school has found a local solution from the Webteck company. This demonstrates how locally provided solutions with support are most sustainable.
Recommendation 7 Work with the ISPs at a central level to aggregate demand, tailor plans to better meet school needs, and to develop a unified approach and costing for special solutions such as microwave links.
Recommendation 8 Power is a major issue for many schools and this analysis has shown how availability is impacted by power. For instance, generators may only be switched on for on a few hours per day. For this reason, consider providing a standard dedicated solar power supply for the connectivity devices for all schools using generator power. As it has been shown, the standard of installation and maintenance of school solar power supplies is an issue. Suitable standards should be developed for solar, including training in monitoring and maintaining. Learn from model schools such as Korotolutolu PS.
Recommendation 9 Training is needed so that schools can monitor and manage access and usage. This is especially important for VSAT, where excess charges can be very high. As a result, schools may be under-using the connection. Such training could be incorporated into in-service training, and video training materials could be made available on FEMIS. A knowledge community could be developed using the FEMIS forum and via existing school communication networks.
Recommendation 10 Minimum standards need to be enforced regarding equipment installation, including cabling. In collaboration with ITC, develop some standards that local IT companies should abide by, which can be circulated through the District offices to schools.
PAGE 41 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Recommendation 11 Schools should take ownership and develop policies on Internet access and applications in close collaboration with their managements. This should be informed by good practices and minimum standards. A model policy should be developed and made available on FEMIS. The lessons learned and definition of minimum connectivity shared in this report could be integrated into the school-based management.
Recommendation 12 Online delivery of exams is preferred because it is secure and efficient. However, there is a need to overcome fears that schools have due to unreliable connectivity and perceived costs. Some model schools (such as Seaqaqa PS) have shown that many of these fears are groundless once adequate connectivity is provided. Guidance could be provided on efficient, low-cost printing and copying.
Recommendation 13 With mobile solutions, some schools are concerned about filtering and the impact of Facebook and personal usage on their data quotas. Secondary schools should be encouraged to upgrade to dedicated broadband (wireless or cable) with unlimited plans where this is available. For the schools using mobile networks, it is possible to provide some services such as free access (FEMIS) and filtering. This can work for schools using mobile broadband by using a special APN. This may be a medium-term goal.
Recommendation 14 Consider local cloud servers (see Annex 12) as an option to increase exposure to students to web-based learning and student research, in a safe “local Internet” environment that does not incur Internet charges. This may be a short-term fix for schools that badly need students to have a means to learn these skills as required by the curriculum, but which cannot easily acquire Internet access. The University of the South Pacific’s e-learning unit has advice on suitable approaches.
PAGE 42 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
9 Next steps
The MoE should consider this report and invite feedback from its stakeholders. They should consider the implications of the cost estimates and decide on the scope of a consequent program to bring schools to the required standard of connectivity.
It would be prudent for the Ministry’s IT Unit to acquire one each of the recommended access solutions for enhancing connectivity and verifying that they work in Fiji with the frequencies used by the three main mobile networks. This appears to be the case from the specifications, but there is no substitute for a physical test. Tests should be carried out in rural areas where 4G is not available, as well as in urban areas.
A generic specification for the solutions described in Section 6 is given in Annex 15.
The logical next step would be to consider a small pilot project to test and evaluate the technical solutions recommended here in a few schools. This may involve working with local IT companies, following an open tender. The pilot could also include capacity building and development of guidance materials.
(1) Through an open tender, procure around 20 high performance outdoor modems. (2) Validation of the recommended technical solutions in around 10 schools (including AQEP- supported schools). (3) Distribute sets of the access equipment to District Offices as demonstrators, and provide training. (4) Review the schools that are using the VTSAT option and evaluate options. (5) Develop guidance and materials to be made available on FEMIS: o draft school policy o generic specifications o guidance for schools o training needs for schools. (6) Hold an Internet Connectivity for Education workshop for District Education Officers to compare and agree on good practices to meet curricular and operational requirements. Review and develop the draft school policy and other guidance materials. (7) Evaluate the project results for a national scale-up program to bring all the schools to the required standard of connectivity.
An outline of the proposed pilot project with estimated cost is attached in Annex 16.
PAGE 43 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 1: Considerations for sustainable school connectivity
Left: Considerations for school connectivity From Connect A School, Connect a Community, ITU and partners http://connectaschool.org/about_us/The_Concept
Below: Dimensions of sustainable connectivity Developed from UNESCO’s pillars of sustainability http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod04t01s03.html
PAGE 44 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 2: List of schools identified by Divisional and District Education Officers
The DEOs flagged 230 schools as having connectivity issues. See Section 4 for the process. (FEA: Fiji Electricity Authority)
School Code School Name District Power DEO category Type 1017 Naloto District School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 1018 Nalotawa District School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 1019 Navala Catholic School Primary Ba-Tavua Own Generator Has to go to nearby location 1029 Votua Catholic School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 1037 Nadarivatu Primary School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 1042 Nadelei Catholic School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 1045 Balevuto Public School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 1370 Lewa S D A School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 1727 Nadrau Primary School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 1889 Nakoroboya Primary School Primary Ba-Tavua Own Generator Has to go to nearby location 3010 Davota Primary School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 3017 Bulabula Sanatan Dharam School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Has to go to nearby location 3042 Savatu Primary Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 3045 Namau Public School Primary Ba-Tavua Own Generator Has to go to nearby location 3068 Vatukoula Arya Samaj School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent 1201 Kasavu Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1204 Vatuvula Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1206 Dawara District School Primary Cakaudrove Other None 1207 Drekeniwai District School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1209 Laucala District Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1210 Nakobo District School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 1211 Nasinu District School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 1212 Natewa District School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 1213 Naweni District School Primary Cakaudrove Solar Intermittent 1216 Saqani District School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 1219 Sukanaivalu Memorial School Primary Cakaudrove Solar Intermittent 1221 Tawake District School Primary Cakaudrove Solar Has to go to nearby location 1224 Buakonikai Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Solar Has to go to nearby location 1225 Vuna District School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 1226 Wailevu East District School Primary Cakaudrove FEA Intermittent 1227 Wailevu West District School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 1228 Wainikeli District School Primary Cakaudrove Solar Intermittent 1231 Tacilevu Village School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1232 Bouma District School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 1233 Banaban Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 1234 St Paul's Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1237 Nabua Primary School Primary Cakaudrove No Supply None 1239 Wainiika District School Primary Cakaudrove No Supply Has to go to nearby location 1242 Vunilagi Primary School Primary Cakaudrove No Supply None
PAGE 45 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School Code School Name District Power DEO category Type 1247 South Taveuni Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 1248 Vatuvonu S D A Primary Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Has to go to nearby location 1250 Kocoma Village School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1258 Wailevu Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1261 Salialevu Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1263 Viani Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1265 Navonu Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Solar None 1268 Qilo Island School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator None 1269 Navakawau Catholic School Primary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 2573 South Taveuni Secondary School Secondary Cakaudrove Solar Intermittent 9218 Vatuvonu Secondary Secondary Cakaudrove Unknown Has to go to nearby location 9229 Napuka Secondary School Secondary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 9230 Saqani High School Secondary Cakaudrove Own Generator Intermittent 9256 Rabi High School Secondary Cakaudrove Solar Intermittent 9744 Navatu Secondary School Secondary Cakaudrove Solar Intermittent 1313 Vunisei District School Primary Eastern Solar None 1332 Vacalea Primary School Primary Eastern Solar None 1333 Dravuni Primary School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1405 Uluiqalau District School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1406 Oneata District School Primary Eastern Solar None 1408 Maloku District School Primary Eastern Unknown None 1409 Nayau District School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1413 Waciwaci District School Primary Eastern Other None 1414 Vatoa District School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1421 Totoya District School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1422 Komo Village School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1423 Vanuavatu District School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1434 Tuvuca Village School Primary Eastern No Supply None 1441 Tovu Village School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1443 Natokalau Primary School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1453 Naikeleyaga District School Primary Eastern No Supply None 1454 Ketei Primary School Primary Eastern Own Generator None 1455 Davetalevu Primary School Primary Eastern Solar None 1514 Qalivakabau District School Primary Eastern Solar None 1521 Vanuaso District School Primary Eastern No Supply None 1546 Uluibau Primary School Primary Eastern Solar None 2203 Paptea District School Primary Eastern Own Generator None Naceva Naceva DS Primary Eastern None Naitauba Naitauba PS Primary Eastern None RtEliki Ratu Eliki Memorial PS Primary Eastern None 1011 Ratu Saimoni Raseru Memorial Primary Lautoka-Yasawa FEA Intermittent Primary School 1020 Naviti District School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa Own Generator Intermittent 1026 Vaturu District School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa FEA Intermittent 1031 Vunayasi District Primary Lautoka-Yasawa FEA Intermittent 1036 Yaqeta Village School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa Solar Intermittent
PAGE 46 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School Code School Name District Power DEO category Type 1038 Ratu Namasi Memorial School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa Solar Have to go to a nearby location 1084 Togo Primary School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa FEA Intermittent 1088 Vakabuli Primary School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa FEA Intermittent 1762 Ratu Nalewavada Public School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa Own Generator None 3034 Lololo Primary School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa FEA Intermittent 3038 Ratu Apenisa Memorial School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa Own Generator Intermittent 3040 Viwa District School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa Solar Have to go to a nearby location 3057 Nadele Public School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa FEA Intermittent 3070 Gaunavou Primary School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa Solar Intermittent 3071 Bouwaqa Primary School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa Solar Have to go to a nearby location Navotua Navotua Primary Primary Lautoka-Yasawa Intermittent 2590 Nasesevia Secondary School Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa FEA None 9372 Yasawa High School Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa Own Generator None 9401 Buruwa Youth Memorial School Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa FEA None 1101 Bua District Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1102 Dama District School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar None 1103 Immaculate Conception Primary Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1104 Kubulau District School Primary Macuata-Bua No Supply None 1105 Lekutu District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1106 Nadi District School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar None 1107 Navakasiga District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1109 Naruwai Village School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar None 1110 Ratu Luke Memorial School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1111 Yadua Village School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1112 Vuya District School Primary Macuata-Bua FEA None 1113 Adi Eliane Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1114 Wainunu Seventh Day Adventist Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None Primary School 1115 Namau Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua FEA Intermittent 1117 Koroinasolo Village School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1120 Nawailevu Village School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar None 1130 Bua Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua No Supply Intermittent 1131 Vunivau Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1136 Ratu Emeri Catholic School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1137 Baravi Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar Intermittent 1138 Galoa Island Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1235 Wairiki District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1244 Domonisavu District Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1603 Qumusea District School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar None 1606 Cadranasiga District School Primary Macuata-Bua No Supply Intermittent 1607 Vunivutu Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua FEA Intermittent 1609 Naduri District School Primary Macuata-Bua FEA None 1610 Namuka District School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar Intermittent 1612 Seaqaqa District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1613 Udu District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1614 Mali District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent
PAGE 47 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School Code School Name District Power DEO category Type 1615 Cikobia District School Primary Macuata-Bua No Supply None 1616 Kia District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1618 Nasasa District School Primary Macuata-Bua No Supply Intermittent 1634 Duavata District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1648 Valelawa Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1650 Lutukina District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1661 Korotolutolu Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar None 1667 Qelemumu Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua FEA None 1669 Solove Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1670 Waidamudamu S D Primary Primary Macuata-Bua FEA Intermittent 1893 Namuka-I-Cake Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar Intermittent 1895 Naivaka Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Generator None 1134 Bua Central College Secondary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1139 Ratu Luke Secondary School Secondary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1272 Duavata Secondary School Secondary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1884 Ahmadiyya Muslim Secondary Secondary Macuata-Bua FEA Intermittent School (Voloca) 9252 Immaculate Conception College Secondary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 9257 Lekutu Secondary School Secondary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 9267 Naikavaki College Secondary Macuata-Bua Own Generator Intermittent 1705 Saint Teresa of Lisieux Primary Primary Nadroga-Navosa Own Generator Intermittent School 1715 Noikoro District School Primary Nadroga-Navosa Own Generator None 1721 Vatulele District School Primary Nadroga-Navosa Own Generator None 1740 Bemana District School Primary Nadroga-Navosa FEA Intermittent 1750 Nalagi Public School Primary Nadroga-Navosa FEA Intermittent 1754 Nadrala Sangam School Primary Nadroga-Navosa FEA Intermittent 1757 Nabaka Primary School Primary Nadroga-Navosa FEA Intermittent 1761 Koroinasau Primary School Primary Nadroga-Navosa FEA Intermittent 3027 Naidiri Bay Khalsa School Primary Nadroga-Navosa FEA Intermittent 1801 Dravuni District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1802 Lutu District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1805 Nabaitavo District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1806 Nabukaluka District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1809 Nairukuruku District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1811 Nakorosule District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1813 Nakurukuruvakatini District Sch Primary Nausori Own Generator Intermittent 1814 Natoaika Village School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1821 Wainawaqa District School Primary Nausori Own Generator Poor/not downloading exams 1829 Nakini Village School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1830 Naitavuni District School Primary Nausori Unknown None 1846 Viria Public School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1854 Ratu Alipate Primary School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1857 Nadakuni District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1860 Nawaisomo Primary School Primary Nausori Own Generator Poor/not downloading exams 1872 Navurevure Primary School Primary Nausori Own Generator Poor/not downloading exams
PAGE 48 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School Code School Name District Power DEO category Type 1875 Turagarua Primary School Primary Nausori Own Generator Has to go to nearby location 1877 Naboro Sawanikula Primary School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1878 Coloi-Naivakacere Primary Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1881 Nailagobokala Primary School Primary Nausori FEA None 2112 Nukui Village School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2121 Burebasaga District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2504 Rokotuivatu District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2508 Dawasamu District school Primary Nausori Unknown Poor/not downloading exams 2510 Kaba Primary School Primary Nausori Own Generator Poor/not downloading exams 2511 Daku Village School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2515 Nailega District School Primary Nausori Solar Poor/not downloading exams 2517 Namara District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2519 Namena District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2522 Ratu Asaeli Rokovucago Memo Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams School 2523 Nasautoka District School Primary Nausori Own Generator None 2526 Dakuivuna Village School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2527 Wainibuka School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2536 Ucunivanua District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2539 Naseva Village Scvhool Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2559 Navunisea District School Primary Nausori Own Generator Poor/not downloading exams 2566 Nailagotabua Primary School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2567 Turagabeci Primary School Primary Nausori No supply Poor/not downloading exams 1804 Muaira District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 1850 Shantiniketan Pathshala School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not downloading exams 2002 Tokaimalo District School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2003 Nabau District School Primary Ra Own Generator Has to go to nearby location 2005 Nalawa Central School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2006 Bureiwai District School Primary Ra Solar Intermittent 2008 Navitilevu District School Primary Ra Solar Intermittent 2009 Navolau District School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2010 Navunibitu Catholic School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2011 Nailuva District School Primary Ra Own Generator Has to go to nearby location 2013 Rakiraki District School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2015 Nalaba District School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2016 Saivou District School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2018 Nakorotubu District School Primary Ra Own Generator Has to go to nearby location 2019 Mataso Primary School Primary Ra Own Generator Intermittent 2020 Bureivanua District School Primary Ra Own Generator Intermittent 2021 Namuaniwaqa Village School Primary Ra Own Generator Intermittent 2023 Naroko Primary School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2024 Bayly Memorial School Primary Ra Own Generator Intermittent 2025 Nawaqavesi Primary School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2030 Barotu Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2033 Ellington Primary School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2041 Waimari Primary School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent
PAGE 49 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School Code School Name District Power DEO category Type 2046 Bucalevu Primary School Primary Ra Own Generator Intermittent 2047 Liwativale Primary School Primary Ra Own Generator Intermittent 2050 Naseyani Primary School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2051 Rakiraki Muslim Primary School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent 2053 Dobuilevu Muslim Primary School Primary Ra FEA Has to go to nearby location 2048 Navesau Adventist High School Secondary Ra Own Generator Intermittent 1276 Waibogi/Wainadiro Primary School Primary Suva No Supply None 1907 Ro Matanitobua Memorial School Primary Suva Own Generator None 1910 Wainiyavu Primary School Primary Suva Own Generator None 2110 Sawau District School Primary Suva Own Generator None 2404 Nuku St Peter Chanel Primary School Primary Suva No Supply None 2601 Beqa/Yanuca Secondary School Secondary Suva Own Generator None
PAGE 50 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 3: Responses to the FEMIS survey Y/N questions
The survey through FEMIS asked 31 questions with a Yes/No answer. The questions are listed below with the Y/N answers, along with comments on the reliability of the results. There were 487 responses (n=487).
Survey Question Y N U % Y Comments on reliability of the results Can you access the Internet from your school in Assumed reliable as the question is clear 1 469 18 0 96% any way? and unambiguous. If not, did the school have access to Internet in The question may be difficult to 2 231 114 142 47% the past? understand. Do you access Internet at your school with a 3 242 235 10 50% post-paid account (answer no for prepaid)? Unreliable. It appears "Fixed" may Does your school have a fixed wireless be interpreted variously. Result is 4 connection (wireless equipment installed by the 304 181 2 62% inconsistent with modem ownership provider)? (see text questions). Does your school use an LTE or 4G modem for Fairly consistent with text answers 5 347 123 17 71% accessing Internet? (78% modem ownership). Do teachers use their own devices for Internet at 6 306 177 4 63% the school (phone, dongle or USB stick)? Is your main means of connecting to Internet It is a simple question although somewhat 7 369 107 11 76% mostly reliable (answer or unreliable)? open to interpretation. Assumed reliable. Assumed unreliable. The question must Do you have any mobile Internet (data) coverage 8 300 179 8 62% have been misunderstood as responses at the school site? are not consistent with answers to Q 9-11. Can you connect to Vodafone within the school 9 396 84 7 81% area and buildings? Can you connect to Digicel within the school area 10 369 109 9 76% and buildings? Can you connect to TFL Connect within the 11 335 140 12 69% school area and buildings? Is Kidanet (FINTEL) available in your school 12 57 416 14 12% area? Answer yes if your school has poor mobile data Compare with Q7 which infers about 24% coverage within the grounds but it is possible to 13 159 301 27 33% have mostly unreliable access at the receive a useable signal within a short walking school. distance. Does the school use any other Internet service 14 44 436 7 9% provider? Does the school use a satellite Internet service 15 15 464 8 3% (VSAT)? 16 Does the school have electricity? 449 31 7 92% Useful as general feedback. 17 Does the school have an FEA electricity supply? 378 105 4 78% Does the school mainly use a generator for 18 84 398 5 17% electricity? Does the school mainly use solar power for 19 58 425 4 12% electricity? Do students have access to Internet at the 20 225 255 7 46% Useful as general feedback. school? Does the community have access to the Internet 21 57 426 4 12% Useful as general feedback. at the school? 22 Does the school have a computer lab? 291 193 3 60% Useful as general feedback. If so, is the computer lab connected to the 23 192 253 42 39% Useful as general feedback. Internet? Is there anyone who can help you with technical 24 265 215 7 54% Useful as general feedback. problems at or near the school?
PAGE 51 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Survey Question Y N U % Y Comments on reliability of the results Does the school manage access to the Internet Probably they just replied Yes for simple 25 using a user management system (where users 214 266 7 44% password security for Wi-Fi. are given usernames and passwords)? Does the school recover costs by charging for 26 62 419 6 13% Useful as general feedback. Internet access? Interesting. They may be thinking of other Does the school regard Internet access as very 27 443 38 6 91% competing priorities, such as power, high priority? school resources. Do teachers sometimes use the Internet as a 28 405 79 3 83% Useful as general feedback. teaching resource (i.e. in the classroom)? Do teachers set assignments for students that 29 279 203 5 57% Useful as general feedback. require Internet access? 30 Does the school have a website? 91 393 3 19% Useful as general feedback. Does the school have a Facebook Page or other 31 204 280 3 42% Useful as general feedback. social media page?
PAGE 52 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 4: Responses to the FEMIS survey short text questions
A summary of the responses to the FEMIS text survey is shown below. There were nine (9) questions, with the aggregated responses summarised below. There were 389 responses (n=389).
Question 2.5 is the most pertinent for estimating the number of schools needing better connectivity (i.e. the main purpose of the assignment). The answers are summarised below.
How do you describe the quality of Internet access at the school, 2.5 unstable and intermittent / stable but slow / stable and fair? None 6 2% Poor at times / Unstable 41 11% Stable but slow 90 23% Stable and Fair / Reasonable / Satisfactory 218 56% Good/Excellent 33 8% Unclear 1 0%
This result gives a clear indication of the scale of numbers involved in each category. To some extent, the sample is significant, but it should be noted there will be some bias that under-estimates schools with no connectivity because they may be under-represented in the sample. The category “slow but stable” can be taken to indicate the connectivity is probably not reaching the minimum levels compliant with the targets outlined above. For instance, a small school that is able to update FEMIS reliably, but not connect multiple users or use online multimedia as may be required by other educational requirements, may regard that as “stable but slow”. So a percentage of that category is likely to be in need of improvement. This gives us a range of about 13–20% of schools, or between 120 and 190 schools.
The remaining questions may be very useful to the MoE for general purposes, as well as helping to contextualise the numerical data on schools. These questions and responses are summarised below.
2.1 Who is the provider of your main Internet connection? Vodafone 83 21% Digicel/Unwired 158 41% Connect/TFL 137 35% Kidanet 0 0% None 5 1% Unclear 6 2%
2.2 Describe the type of device used (e.g. 4G modem, Pocket Wi-Fi, dongle, VSAT) Phone 3 1% DSL / landline 14 4% 3G modem 17 4% 4G modem 212 54% Unspecified modem 39 10% Pocket Wi-Fi 37 10% Dongle 9 2% VSAT 7 2% Other/unclear 51 13%
PAGE 53 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The two tables above demonstrate that the three main providers have fairly similar shares. From individual responses, it seems that TFL Connect is preferred in urban areas for fixed broadband or in remote areas for VSAT, whereas the mobile carriers are used more in peri-urban and rural areas, and by smaller schools in urban areas. Where fixed broadband exists, the dedicated and unlimited connections will be far more suited to schools than the mobile plans.
2.4 How much do you pay per month (FJD) for the main Internet connection at your school? 0 1 0% 1-49 233 60% 50-74 61 16% 75-99 21 5% 100-149 38 10% 150-199 8 2% 200-299 8 2% 300-399 1 0% 400-499 1 0% 500-599 1 0% 600-999 0 0% Unclear 16 4%
Price is a big factor in driving better connectivity. In Fiji, it seems that a school’s ICT budget is just sufficient to provide for needs, as it is scalable depending on enrolment. Of the schools, 81% pay less than FJD $100 per month. Comments on affordability were recorded in the case studies (see Annex 11).
2.6 Write down the most important three educational uses for school Internet, in your opinion.
Research 232 Learning 27 FEMIS 167 Updating 23 Teaching 67 Administration 21 Students 59 Correspondence 17 Emails 58 Data 17 Teachers 53 Mails 17 Update 46 Student 16 MoE 44 Videos 15 Work 40 Education 14 Educational 37 Circulars 14 Email 36 Admin 13 Communication 35 Teacher 11 School 34 Downloading 11 Resources 32 Mail 11 Access 31 Website 9 Information 30
PAGE 54 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The responses above indicate the priorities of schools in their Internet use. The curricular requirement for teacher and student research is the most prominent, followed by FEMIS and teaching and learning, with student access prioritised by many. This is a healthy balance between central and local needs.
2.7 What are the challenges you face in maintaining the Internet connection? Weather, rain 74 19% Quality of connectivity 56 14% Slow 49 13% Bills, payments, cost 45 12% Power, electricity 40 10% FEMIS 4 1% Student 4 1% Teacher 9 2%
2.8 Did Tropical Cyclone Winston affect your Internet access and has it been restored (describe)? Not affected 188 48% Yes but restored 178 46% Yes and not fully restored 14 4% Other/unclear 9 2%
PAGE 55 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
2.9 If you wish to tell us anything more about fixed Internet, write it here. No comment 173 44% Other/general comments 54 14% Network should be better, better service needed 40 10% Wi-Fi / LAN needed, access for all school 23 6% Special plan for different schools, night bundles, more data 19 5% Fixed Internet is better 12 3% Positive statements about connectivity 12 3% Need faster 11 3% Need help 9 2% Too expensive 7 2% Power issues 6 2% TFL Connect is best 6 2% Digicel is best 6 2% Filtering, security 3 1% Need more computers, especially for students 2 1% Telecentre & community 2 1% VSAT good 2 1% Content / eLearning 1 0% Need IT support person 1 0%
Most respondents did not comment or only expressed general satisfaction. Of those that did, the most notable themes include: the concern for network improvements and better connectivity the need for schools to integrate a local area network with the connection so as to distribute to classrooms and thereby give more access to students. This includes comments regarding Wi-Fi and observations about “fixed Internet” which the author interprets as meaning integrated with a LAN the need for more appropriate Internet plans that suit schools. This includes a focus on day-time use, rather than night-time (many plans feature bundles where data quotas are divided day/night), and plans with more data for schools. It is suggested by several schools that the MoE might negotiate with ISPs so as to aggregate demand for spacial school plans.
Two schools commented on the need for community access via Telecentres based at their schools, which was also an observation made in the case studies.
PAGE 56 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 5: List of schools using TFL’s VSAT solution (VTSAT)
Telekom Fiji Ltd (TFL) provided this list of 62 schools, which use its satellite service. Schools either have their own VSAT or share one with the community (i.e. residential/school). See Section 5.3 for analysis.
School Name Code Division Province Cust Type Data Voice Island Power Nayau DS 1409 Eastern Lau Residential/school Yes Yes Nayau Generator Naroi DS 1404 Eastern Lau Residential/School No Yes Moala Generator Maloku DS 1408 Eastern Lau Residential/School Yes Yes Moala Unknown Cakova DS 1451 Eastern Lau Residential/School Yes Yes Moala Generator Uciwai DS 1411 Eastern Lau Residential/School Yes Yes Moala Generator Vunuku DS 1439 Eastern Lau Residential/school Yes Yes Moala Generator Vunigigia VS 1436 Eastern Lau Residential/school Yes Yes Kabara Generator Delaiverata DS 1426 Eastern Lau Residential/School Yes Yes Matuku Generator Babasea DS 1452 Eastern Lau Residential/School Yes Yes Matuku Generator Vanuavatu DS 1423 Eastern Lau Residential/School Yes Yes Vanuavatu Generator Navesi PS 1447 Eastern Lau Residential/school Yes Yes Totoya Generator Kabara DS 1416 Eastern Lau Residential/school Yes Yes Kabara Generator Moce DS 1418 Eastern Lau Residential/School Yes Yes Moce Generator Matuatabu PS 1425 Eastern Lau Residential/school Yes Yes Ogea Generator Vatoa DS 1414 Eastern Lau Residential/School Yes Yes Vatoa Generator Vulaga DS 1412 Eastern Lau Residential/School Yes Yes Vulaga Solar Nukuloa VS 1534 Eastern Lomaiviti Residential/School Yes Yes Lomaiviti Solar Koro High School 1540 Eastern Lomaiviti School Yes Yes Koro Generator Yasayasa Moala College 1444 Eastern Lau School Yes Yes Moala Generator Ratu Mocevakaca MS 1415 Eastern Lau School Yes Yes Matuku Generator Cicia High School 1419 Eastern Lau School Yes Yes Cicia Unknown Adi Maopa Sec. School 1410 Eastern Lau School Yes Yes Vanua Balabu Generator Mavana (Ratu finau Sec.) 1445 Eastern Lau School Yes Yes Lakeba Generator Yasanaira Dist. School 1420 Eastern Lau School Yes Yes Moala Generator Lovoni Pri School 1533 Eastern Lomaiviti School Yes Yes Ovalau FEA Visoto Pri School 1522 Eastern Lomaiviti School Yes Yes Ovalau FEA Waitoga Village School 1503 Eastern Lomaiviti School Yes Yes Lomaiviti None Gau Sec. School 1539 Eastern Lomaiviti School Yes Yes Gau Generator Sawaike Dist. School 1519 Eastern Lomaiviti School Yes Yes Gau Generator Rotuma High School 2206 Eastern Rotuma School Yes Yes Rotuma Solar Natusara District School 1327 Eastern Kadavu School Yes Yes Ono, Kadavu Generator Richmond High School 9107 Eastern Kadavu School Yes Yes Kadavu Generator Kadavu Provincial School 9113 Eastern Kadavu School Yes Yes Kadavu Generator Waidina Sec. School unknown Central Naitasiri Residential/School Yes Yes Viti Levu Unknown Wainawaqa DS 1821 Central Naitasiri Residential/School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Nadakuni DS 1857 Central Naitasiri Residential/School Yes Yes Viti Levu FEA unknown unknown Central Namosi Residential/School Yes Yes Viti Levu Unknown Nakavika PS 1882 Central Namosi Residential/School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Queen Victoria School QVS Central Tailevu School Yes Yes Viti Levu FEA Ratu Kadavulevu School 2541 Central Tailevu School Yes Yes Viti Levu FEA Nasele Dist. School 1851 Central Naitasiri School Yes Yes Viti Levu FEA Navurevure 1872 Central Naitasiri School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Nabukaluka Primary School 1806 Central Naitasiri School Yes Yes Viti Levu FEA
PAGE 57 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School Name Code Division Province Cust Type Data Voice Island Power Nakuruvaka Dist School 1813 Central Naitasiri School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Veinuqa District School 1905 Central Namosi School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Namosi Sec School 9428 Central Namosi School Yes Yes Viti Levu FEA Navunikabi 1904 Central Namosi School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Naqarawai 1908 Central Namosi School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Wainimakutu Sec. School 2394 Central Namosi School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Nuku Sec School 2600 Central Serua School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator WainidiroWaibogi School 1276 Central Serua School Yes Yes Viti Levu None Wailevu Primary School 1226 Northern Cakaudrove School Yes Yes Vanua Levu FEA Rt Emeri Sec. School 1136 Northern Bua School Yes Yes Vanua Levu Generator Baravi College 1137 Northern Bua School Yes Yes Vanua Levu Generator Duavata Sec. School 1634 Northern Macuata School Yes Yes Vanua Levu Generator Noikoro DS 1715 Western Navosa Residential/School No Yes Viti Levu Generator Navesau Adventist School 2048 Western Ra School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Nasau DS 2007 Western Ra School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Tokaimalo DS 2002 Western Ra School Yes Yes Viti Levu FEA Bainimarama Vatutoko PS 1275 Western Navosa School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Natutale PS 1765 Western Navosa School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator Nasivikoso College 2584 Western Navosa School Yes Yes Viti Levu Generator
Key: DS – District School; Dist. – District; PS – Primary School; Sec. – Secondary
Location of the school and e-community VTSATs
PAGE 58 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 6: List of schools identified by the FEMIS survey and confirmed by DEOs
Fifty four (54) schools were flagged by both the DEOs and the FEMIS survey.
School Y/N Y/N Code School Name District Power DEO category Text Q5 type Q1 Q7 1017 Naloto District School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent - N - 1018 Nalotawa District School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent - N Unstable and intermittent 1019 Navala Catholic School Primary Ba-Tavua Own Has to go to nearby N N n/a Generator location 1045 Balevuto Public School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent - N Unstable and intermittent 1889 Nakoroboya Primary Primary Ba-Tavua Own Has to go to nearby - N Unstable and School Generator location intermittent 3010 Davota Primary School Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Intermittent - N Stable but slow 3017 Bulabula Sanatan Primary Ba-Tavua FEA Has to go to nearby - - Stable but slow Dharam School location 3045 Namau Public School Primary Ba-Tavua Own Has to go to nearby N N - Generator location 1211 Nasinu District School Primary Cakaudrove Own Intermittent - N - Generator 1213 Naweni District School Primary Cakaudrove Solar Intermittent - - Stable but slow 1224 Buakonikai Primary Primary Cakaudrove Solar Has to go to nearby - N Unstable and School location intermitten 1233 Banaban Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Own Intermittent - N Unstable and Generator intermitent 1242 Vunilagi Primary School Primary Cakaudrove No Supply None N N - 1265 Navonu Primary School Primary Cakaudrove Solar None N N - 9230 Saqani High School Secondary Cakaudrove Own Intermittent - N Stable but slow Generator 1313 Vunisei District School Primary Eastern Solar None N N No internet connectivity. Have to walk more than a kim away from school. 1413 Waciwaci District School Primary Eastern Other None - N - 1026 Vaturu District School Primary Lautoka- FEA Intermittent - N Stable but slow Yasawa 1036 Yaqeta Village School Primary Lautoka- Solar Intermittent - N Poor Yasawa 2590 Nasesevia Secondary Secondary Lautoka- FEA None N N - School Yasawa 9401 Buruwa Youth Memorial Secondary Lautoka- FEA None N - - School Yasawa 1105 Lekutu District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own None - N - Generator 1112 Vuya District School Primary Macuata-Bua FEA None - N - 1113 Adi Eliane Primary Primary Macuata-Bua Own Intermittent - N Unstable School Generator 1120 Nawailevu Village Primary Macuata-Bua Solar None - - Unstable and School intermittent (depends on the weather) 1235 Wairiki District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Intermittent - N -
PAGE 59 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School Y/N Y/N Code School Name District Power DEO category Text Q5 type Q1 Q7 Generator 1603 Qumusea District School Primary Macuata-Bua Solar None N N - 1614 Mali District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Intermittent - - Stable but slow Generator 1618 Nasasa District School Primary Macuata-Bua No Supply Intermittent - N Stable but slow 1650 Lutukina District School Primary Macuata-Bua Own Intermittent - N - Generator 1139 Ratu Luke Secondary Secondary Macuata-Bua Own Intermittent N - - School Generator 9267 Naikavaki College Secondary Macuata-Bua Own Intermittent - - Stable but slow Generator 1715 Noikoro District School Primary Nadroga- Own None N N No Navosa Generator 1740 Bemana District School Primary Nadroga- FEA Intermittent - N - Navosa 1754 Nadrala Sangam School Primary Nadroga- FEA Intermittent - N Unstable Navosa 1805 Nabaitavo District Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not - - Stable and slow School downloading exams 1872 Navurevure Primary Primary Nausori Own Poor/not - N - School Generator downloading exams 2517 Namara District School Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not - N - downloading exams 2559 Navunisea District Primary Nausori Own Poor/not - - Stable but slow School Generator downloading exams 2567 Turagabeci Primary Primary Nausori No supply Poor/not - N - School downloading exams 1850 Shantiniketan Pathshala Primary Nausori FEA Poor/not - - Unstable and School downloading exams intermittent 2005 Nalawa Central School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent - - Stable but slow 2006 Bureiwai District School Primary Ra Solar Intermittent - N - 2010 Navunibitu Catholic Primary Ra FEA Intermittent - - Stable but slow School 2011 Nailuva District School Primary Ra Own Has to go to nearby N N Poor connectivity - Generator location travel for about 4-5km to get connectivity. 2015 Nalaba District School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent - - Stable and slow 2019 Mataso Primary School Primary Ra Own Intermittent - N Unstable and Generator intermittent 2030 Barotu Primary Ra FEA Intermittent - N Stable but low 2041 Waimari Primary School Primary Ra FEA Intermittent - - Stable but slow 2046 Bucalevu Primary School Primary Ra Own Intermittent - - Stable but slow Generator 2051 Rakiraki Muslim Primary Primary Ra FEA Intermittent - N - School 2053 Dobuilevu Muslim Primary Ra FEA Has to go to nearby - N - Primary School location 2048 Navesau Adventist High Secondary Ra Own Intermittent N N Unstable and School Generator intermittent 1276 Waibogi/Wainadiro Primary Suva No Supply None N N - Primary School
PAGE 60 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Top Priority List (79 schools confirmed with “no connectivity”)
This is the Top Priority List of schools, which were confirmed by both the DEOs and the FEMIS survey as having no connectivity, plus schools that DEOs have selected based on first-hand knowledge that have no connectivity. Sites where there is no possibility of a terrestrial link (fixed wireless link) will need VSATs. However, as satellite Internet is expensive, the ISPs were asked if they could indicate which sites they might reach with terrestrial links. Only Vodafone responded, indicating 16 schools where a link with their towers may be possible. The other mobile network operators who did not respond may be able to link some of the remaining schools, but surveys would be needed to confirm this.
Type District Code SchoolName VSAT may Link Comments (Vodafone) Power be needed possible with Vodafone 1 Primary Cakaudrove 1201 Kasavu Primary School √ Good coverage area. Should also Generator get 2G/3G signal from Navuso BTS. 2 Primary Cakaudrove 1204 Vatuvula Primary School √ Generator 3 Primary Cakaudrove 1206 Dawara District School √ No Supply 4 Primary Cakaudrove 1207 Drekeniwai District School √ Generator 5 Primary Cakaudrove 1209 Laucala District √ Survey needed to confirm. Unknown 6 Primary Cakaudrove 1231 Tacilevu Village School √ Survey needed to confirm. Generator 7 Primary Cakaudrove 1234 St Paul's Primary School √ Generator 8 Primary Cakaudrove 1237 Nabua Primary School √ Generator 9 Primary Cakaudrove 1242 Vunilagi Primary School √ No Supply 10 Primary Cakaudrove 1250 Kocoma Village School √ Generator 11 Primary Cakaudrove 1258 Wailevu Primary School √ Generator 12 Primary Cakaudrove 1261 Salialevu Primary School √ Survey needed to confirm. Generator 13 Primary Cakaudrove 1263 Viani Primary School √ No Supply 14 Primary Cakaudrove 1265 Navonu Primary School √ No Supply 15 Primary Cakaudrove 1268 Qilo Island School √ Survey needed to confirm. Generator 16 Primary Eastern 1304 Naceva DS √ Unknown 17 Primary Eastern 1308 Ratu Eliki Memorial PS √ Survey needed to confirm. Need Generator to reconfirm on 2G/3G coverage - BTS on Matanuku Is. 18 Primary Eastern 1313 Vunisei District School √ Solar 19 Primary Eastern 1332 Vacalea Primary School √ Solar 20 Primary Eastern 1333 Dravuni Primary School √ Generator 21 Primary Eastern 1405 Uluiqalau District School √ Generator 22 Primary Eastern 1406 Oneata District School √ Solar 23 Primary Eastern 1408 Maloku District School √ Unknown 24 Primary Eastern 1409 Nayau District School √ Generator 25 Primary Eastern 1413 Waciwaci District School √ Other 26 Primary Eastern 1414 Vatoa District School √ Unknown 27 Primary Eastern 1421 Totoya District School √ Generator 28 Primary Eastern 1422 Komo Village School √ Generator 29 Primary Eastern 1423 Vanuavatu District School √ Generator
PAGE 61 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Type District Code SchoolName VSAT may Link Comments (Vodafone) Power be needed possible with Vodafone 30 Primary Eastern 1433 Naitauba Primary School √ Generator 31 Primary Eastern 1434 Tuvuca Village School √ No Supply 32 Primary Eastern 1441 Tovu Village School √ Generator 33 Primary Eastern 1443 Natokalau Primary School √ Generator 34 Primary Eastern 1453 Naikeleyaga District School √ No Supply 35 Primary Eastern 1454 Ketei Primary School √ Generator 36 Primary Eastern 1455 Davetalevu Primary School √ Unknown 37 Primary Eastern 1514 Qalivakabau District School √ Solar 38 Primary Eastern 1521 Vanuaso District School √ No Supply 39 Primary Eastern 1546 Uluibau Primary School √ Solar 40 Primary Eastern 2203 Paptea District School √ Generator 41 Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 1762 Ratu Nalewavada Public √ Generator School 42 Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa 2590 Nasesevia Secondary School √ Unknown 43 Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa 9372 Yasawa High School √ Survey needed to confirm. Generator 44 Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa 9401 Buruwa Youth Memorial √ FEA School 45 Primary Macuata-Bua 1102 Dama District School √ Solar 46 Primary Macuata-Bua 1103 Immaculate Conception √ Generator Primary 47 Primary Macuata-Bua 1104 Kubulau District School √ Our BTS less than 1 km away. No Supply Should also get 2G/3G signal. 48 Primary Macuata-Bua 1105 Lekutu District School √ Generator 49 Primary Macuata-Bua 1106 Nadi District School √ Survey needed to confirm. Solar Should also get 2G/3G signal from Wainunu BTS. 50 Primary Macuata-Bua 1107 Navakasiga District School √ Generator 51 Primary Macuata-Bua 1109 Naruwai Village School √ Solar 52 Primary Macuata-Bua 1112 Vuya District School √ Should be getting 2G/3G FEA coverage from Nabouwalu BTS. 53 Primary Macuata-Bua 1114 Wainunu Seventh Day √ Generator Adventist Primary School 54 Primary Macuata-Bua 1117 Koroinasolo Village School √ Generator 55 Primary Macuata-Bua 1120 Nawailevu Village School √ Survey needed to confirm. Solar Should also get 2G/3G signal from Bauxite BTS. 56 Primary Macuata-Bua 1138 Galoa Island Primary School √ Generator 57 Primary Macuata-Bua 1244 Domonisavu District √ Generator 58 Primary Macuata-Bua 1603 Qumusea District School √ Solar 59 Primary Macuata-Bua 1609 Naduri District School √ Unknown 60 Primary Macuata-Bua 1612 Seaqaqa District School √ Generator 61 Primary Macuata-Bua 1613 Udu District School √ Generator 62 Primary Macuata-Bua 1615 Cikobia District School √ No Supply 63 Primary Macuata-Bua 1616 Kia District School √ Generator 64 Primary Macuata-Bua 1634 Duavata District School √ Unknown 65 Primary Macuata-Bua 1661 Korotolutolu Primary School √ Solar
PAGE 62 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Type District Code SchoolName VSAT may Link Comments (Vodafone) Power be needed possible with Vodafone 66 Primary Macuata-Bua 1667 Qelemumu Primary School √ FEA 67 Primary Macuata-Bua 1669 Solove Primary School √ Generator 68 Primary Macuata-Bua 1895 Naivaka Primary School √ Generator 69 Primary Nadroga- 1715 Noikoro District School √ Generator Navosa 70 Primary Nadroga- 1721 Vatulele District School √ Generator Navosa 71 Primary Nausori 1830 Naitavuni District School √ Unknown 72 Primary Nausori 1881 Nailagobokala Primary School √ FEA 73 Primary Nausori 2523 Nasautoka District School √ Generator 74 Primary Suva 1276 Waibogi/Wainadiro Primary No Supply School 75 Primary Suva 1907 Ro Matanitobua Memorial √ Generator School 76 Primary Suva 1910 Wainiyavu Primary School √ Generator 77 Primary Suva 2110 Sawau District School √ 2G/3G coverage should be good Unknown as well. 78 Primary Suva 2404 Nuku St Peter Chanel Primary √ No Supply School 79 Secondary Suva 2601 Beqa/Yanuca Secondary √ Survey needed to confirm. Need Generator School to check coverage 2G/3G provided by Yanuca and Beqa BTS.
PAGE 63 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 8: High Priority List (100 schools confirmed with “poor connectivity”)
The study identified 100 schools that need improved connectivity, as prioritised in Section 5.6. Schools that have poor/intermittent connectivity that is confirmed by both the DEO consultations and the FEMIS survey. Schools that DEOs have hand-picked based on close local knowledge of the school.
This list does not include the 79 Top Priority schools identified as having “no connectivity” (see Annex 7).
School District Code School Name Power DEO category Y/N Y/N Text Q5 Type Q1 Q7 1 Primary Ba-Tavua 1017 Naloto District School FEA Intermittent - N - 2 Primary Ba-Tavua 1018 Nalotawa District School FEA Intermittent - N Unstable and intermittent 3 Primary Ba-Tavua 1029 Votua Catholic School FEA Intermittent 4 Primary Ba-Tavua 1037 Nadarivatu Primary School FEA Intermittent 5 Primary Ba-Tavua 1042 Nadelei Catholic School FEA Intermittent 6 Primary Ba-Tavua 1045 Balevuto Public School FEA Intermittent - N Unstable and intermittent 7 Primary Ba-Tavua 1370 Lewa S D A School FEA Intermittent 8 Primary Ba-Tavua 1727 Nadrau Primary School FEA Intermittent 9 Primary Ba-Tavua 3010 Davota Primary School FEA Intermittent - N Stable but slow 10 Primary Ba-Tavua 3017 Bulabula Sanatan Dharam FEA Has to go to - - stable but slow School nearby location 11 Primary Ba-Tavua 3042 Savatu Primary FEA Intermittent 12 Primary Ba-Tavua 3068 Vatukoula Arya Samaj School FEA Intermittent
13 Primary Ba-Tavua 1019 Navala Catholic School Own Has to go to N N n/a Generator nearby location 14 Primary Ba-Tavua 1889 Nakoroboya Primary School Own Has to go to - N Unstable and intermittent Generator nearby location 15 Primary Ba-Tavua 3045 Namau Public School Own Has to go to N N - Generator nearby location 16 Primary Cakaudrove 1226 Wailevu East District School FEA Intermittent
17 Primary Cakaudrove 1239 Wainiika District School No Supply Has to go to nearby location 18 Primary Cakaudrove 1210 Nakobo District School Own Intermittent Generator 19 Primary Cakaudrove 1211 Nasinu District School Own Intermittent - N - Generator 20 Primary Cakaudrove 1212 Natewa District School Own Intermittent Generator 21 Primary Cakaudrove 1216 Saqani District School Own Intermittent Generator 22 Primary Cakaudrove 1225 Vuna District School Own Intermittent Generator 23 Primary Cakaudrove 1227 Wailevu West District School Own Intermittent Generator 24 Primary Cakaudrove 1232 Bouma District School Own Intermittent Generator 25 Primary Cakaudrove 1233 Banaban Primary School Own Intermittent - N Unstable and Generator intermitent
PAGE 64 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School District Code School Name Power DEO category Y/N Y/N Text Q5 Type Q1 Q7 26 Primary Cakaudrove 1247 South Taveuni Primary Own Intermittent School Generator 27 Primary Cakaudrove 1248 Vatuvonu S D A Primary Own Has to go to Generator nearby location 28 Primary Cakaudrove 1269 Navakawau Catholic School Own Intermittent Generator 29 Primary Cakaudrove 1213 Naweni District School Solar Intermittent - - Stable but slow 30 Primary Cakaudrove 1219 Sukanaivalu Memorial School Solar Intermittent
31 Primary Cakaudrove 1221 Tawake District School Solar Has to go to nearby location 32 Primary Cakaudrove 1224 Buakonikai Primary School Solar Has to go to - N Unstable and intermitten nearby location 33 Primary Cakaudrove 1228 Wainikeli District School Solar Intermittent
34 Sec. Cakaudrove 9229 Napuka Secondary School Own Intermittent Generator 35 Sec. Cakaudrove 9230 Saqani High School Own Intermittent - N Stable but slow Generator 36 Sec. Cakaudrove 2573 South Taveuni Secondary Solar Intermittent School 37 Sec. Cakaudrove 9256 Rabi High School Solar Intermittent 38 Sec. Cakaudrove 9744 Navatu Secondary School Solar Intermittent
39 Sec. Cakaudrove 9218 Vatuvonu Secondary Unknown Has to go to nearby location 40 Primary Lautoka- 1011 Ratu Saimoni Raseru FEA Intermittent Yasawa Memorial Primary School 41 Primary Lautoka- 1026 Vaturu District School FEA Intermittent - N Stable but slow Yasawa 42 Primary Lautoka- 1031 Vunayasi District FEA Intermittent Yasawa 43 Primary Lautoka- 1084 Togo Primary School FEA Intermittent Yasawa 44 Primary Lautoka- 1088 Vakabuli Primary School FEA Intermittent Yasawa 45 Primary Lautoka- 3034 Lololo Primary School FEA Intermittent Yasawa 46 Primary Lautoka- 3057 Nadele Public School FEA Intermittent Yasawa 47 Primary Lautoka- 1020 Naviti District School Own Intermittent Yasawa Generator 48 Primary Lautoka- 3038 Ratu Apenisa Memorial Own Intermittent Yasawa School Generator 49 Primary Lautoka- 1036 Yaqeta Village School Solar Intermittent - N Poor Yasawa 50 Primary Lautoka- 1038 Ratu Namasi Memorial Solar Has to go to Yasawa School nearby location 51 Primary Lautoka- 3040 Viwa District School Solar Has to go to Yasawa nearby location 52 Primary Lautoka- 3070 Gaunavou Primary School Solar Intermittent Yasawa 53 Primary Lautoka- 3071 Bouwaqa Primary School Solar Has to go to Yasawa nearby location 54 Primary Macuata- 1618 Nasasa District School No Supply Intermittent - N Stable but slow Bua
PAGE 65 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School District Code School Name Power DEO category Y/N Y/N Text Q5 Type Q1 Q7 55 Primary Macuata- 1113 Adi Eliane Primary School Own Intermittent - N Unstable Bua Generator 56 Primary Macuata- 1235 Wairiki District School Own Intermittent - N - Bua Generator 57 Primary Macuata- 1614 Mali District School Own Intermittent - - Stable but slow Bua Generator 58 Primary Macuata- 1650 Lutukina District School Own Intermittent - N - Bua Generator 59 Sec. Macuata- 1139 Ratu Luke Secondary School Own Intermittent N - - Bua Generator 60 Sec. Macuata- 9267 Naikavaki College Own Intermittent - - Stable but slow Bua Generator 61 Primary Nadroga- 1740 Bemana District School FEA Intermittent - N - Navosa 62 Primary Nadroga- 1750 Nalagi Public School FEA Intermittent Navosa 63 Primary Nadroga- 1754 Nadrala Sangam School FEA Intermittent - N Unstable Navosa 64 Primary Nadroga- 1757 Nabaka Primary School FEA Intermittent Navosa 65 Primary Nadroga- 1761 Koroinasau Primary School FEA Intermittent Navosa 66 Primary Nadroga- 3027 Naidiri Bay Khalsa School FEA Intermittent Navosa 67 Primary Nadroga- 1705 Saint Teresa of Lisieux Own Intermittent Navosa Primary School Generator 68 Primary Nausori 1805 Nabaitavo District School FEA Poor/not - - Stable and slow. downloading exams 69 Primary Nausori 2517 Namara District School FEA Poor/not - N - downloading exams 70 Primary Nausori 2567 Turagabeci Primary School No supply Poor/not - N - downloading exams 71 Primary Nausori 1872 Navurevure Primary School Own Poor/not - N - Generator downloading exams 72 Primary Nausori 2559 Navunisea District School Own Poor/not - - Stable but slow Generator downloading exams 73 Primary Nausori 1850 Shantiniketan Pathshala FEA Poor/not - - Unstable and intermittent School downloading exams 74 Primary Ra 2002 Tokaimalo District School FEA Intermittent 75 Primary Ra 2005 Nalawa Central School FEA Intermittent - - Stable but slow 76 Primary Ra 2009 Navolau District School FEA Intermittent 77 Primary Ra 2010 Navunibitu Catholic School FEA Intermittent - - Stable but slow 78 Primary Ra 2013 Rakiraki District School FEA Intermittent 79 Primary Ra 2015 Nalaba District School FEA Intermittent - - Stable and slow 80 Primary Ra 2016 Saivou District School FEA Intermittent 81 Primary Ra 2023 Naroko Primary School FEA Intermittent 82 Primary Ra 2025 Nawaqavesi Primary School FEA Intermittent
PAGE 66 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
School District Code School Name Power DEO category Y/N Y/N Text Q5 Type Q1 Q7 83 Primary Ra 2030 Barotu FEA Intermittent - N Stable but low 84 Primary Ra 2033 Ellington Primary School FEA Intermittent
85 Primary Ra 2041 Waimari Primary School FEA Intermittent - - Stable but slow 86 Primary Ra 2050 Naseyani Primary School FEA Intermittent
87 Primary Ra 2051 Rakiraki Muslim Primary FEA Intermittent - N - School 88 Primary Ra 2053 Dobuilevu Muslim Primary FEA Has to go to - N - School nearby location 89 Primary Ra 2003 Nabau District School Own Has to go to Generator nearby location 90 Primary Ra 2011 Nailuva District School Own Has to go to N N Poor connectivity – travel Generator nearby location for about 4-5km to get connectivity 91 Primary Ra 2018 Nakorotubu District School Own Has to go to Generator nearby location 92 Primary Ra 2019 Mataso Primary School Own Intermittent - N Unstable and intermittent Generator 93 Primary Ra 2020 Bureivanua District School Own Intermittent Generator 94 Primary Ra 2021 Namuaniwaqa Village School Own Intermittent Generator 95 Primary Ra 2024 Bayly Memorial School Own Intermittent Generator 96 Primary Ra 2046 Bucalevu Primary School Own Intermittent - - Stable but slow Generator 97 Primary Ra 2047 Liwativale Primary School Own Intermittent Generator 98 Primary Ra 2006 Bureiwai District School Solar Intermittent - N - 99 Primary Ra 2008 Navitilevu District School Solar Intermittent
100 Sec. Ra 2048 Navesau Adventist High Own Intermittent N N Unstable and intermittent School Generator
Key: Sec. – Seconday; SDA – Seventh Day Adventist; FEA – Fiji Electricity Authority
PAGE 67 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 9: Medium Priority List (130 schools with mixed connectivity issues)
The study identified 130 schools that need improved connectivity, as prioritised in Section 5.6 Schools that responded in the FEMIS survey as having poor/intermittent connectivity but this was not confirmed by the DEOs. Schools identified at Divisional level, but which did not respond in the FEMIS survey.
Y/N Y/N Type District Code School Power DEO category Text Q5 Q1 Q7 Primary Ba-Tavua 1039 Koronubu Sangam School FEA N At times very poor. Primary Ba-Tavua 3003 Talaiya Muslim P. School FEA N Stable but slow Primary Ba-Tavua 1065 Vasist Muni Memorial School FEA N Unstable and intermittent Primary Ba-Tavua 1009 Navoli Sangam School FEA N Primary Ba-Tavua 1052 Balata Primary School FEA N Primary Ba-Tavua 1089 Shastri Memorial School FEA N Primary Ba-Tavua 1074 Varavu Sanatan Dharm School FEA Poor – unstable and intermittent Secondary Ba-Tavua 9027 A D Patel College FEA N Stable but slow Secondary Ba-Tavua 9029 Balata High School FEA N Stable but slow Secondary Ba-Tavua 9936 Balata Primary School Kindy #N/A N Secondary Ba-Tavua 9049 Davota Indian Kindergarten #N/A N Stable but slow Primary Cakaudrove 1278 Nasavusavu Public School FEA N Unstable and intermittent. Primary Cakaudrove 1266 Vuanisaiki Primary School No Supply N Stable but slow Primary Cakaudrove 1223 Vunisalusalu Central School No Supply N Stable but slow Primary Cakaudrove 1236 Sese/Volivoli District School Generator N Unstable and intimittent Primary Cakaudrove 1203 Natadra District School Generator N Primary Cakaudrove 1245 Tabiang Primary School Generator N Primary Cakaudrove 1264 Vanuavou Primary School Generator N Primary Cakaudrove 1240 Taveuni Central Sanatan Generator Unstable and slow Primary Primary Cakaudrove 1267 Ucunivatu Primary School Solar N Stable but slow Primary Eastern 1529 Ratu Seru Memorial School FEA N Vodafone service is unstable Primary Eastern 1504 Levuka Public School FEA N Primary Eastern 1542 Rukuruku Primary School FEA N Primary Eastern 1503 Waitoga Village School No Supply N Primary Eastern 1331 Richmond Methodist Primary Other N Unstable School Primary Eastern 1327 Natusara Primary School Generator N Primary Eastern 1424 Mabula District School Generator N Primary Eastern 1444 Yasayasa Moala College Generator Very poor Primary Eastern 1531 Nawaikama District School Solar N Primary Eastern 1886 Cicia High School #N/A N N Unstable and intermittent Primary Eastern 1539 Gau Secondary School #N/A N Primary Eastern 1325 Naivikadi Primary School #N/A Unstable and
PAGE 68 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Y/N Y/N Type District Code School Power DEO category Text Q5 Q1 Q7 intermittent Secondary Eastern 9107 Richmond Methodist High Generator N School Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 1058 Votualevu Public School FEA N Stable but slow Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 3028 Lautoka Primary School FEA Unstable and intermittent Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 1119 Central College Lautoka FEA N Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 2591 Maharishi Primary School #N/A N Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 2592 Magodro Secondary School #N/A N Stable but slow Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa 9329 Nadi Muslim College FEA N Unstable Primary Macuata-Bua 1115 Namau Primary School FEA Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1607 Vunivutu Primary School FEA Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1670 Waidamudamu S D Primary FEA Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1665 Bulileka Sanatan College FEA N Primary Macuata-Bua 1130 Bua Primary School No Supply Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1606 Cadranasiga District School No Supply Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1101 Bua District Generator Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1110 Ratu Luke Memorial School Generator Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1111 Yadua Village School Generator Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1131 Vunivau Primary School Generator Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1136 Ratu Emeri Catholic School Generator Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1648 Valelawa Primary School Generator Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1133 Nasarawaqa Primary School Generator N Stable but slow Primary Macuata-Bua 1643 Nubu Primary School Generator N Stable but slow Primary Macuata-Bua 1671 Vudibasoga Catholic School Generator N N Unstable and intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1617 Dogotuki District School Generator N Primary Macuata-Bua 1645 Muanidevo Sanatan Dharam Generator Unstable Primary School Primary Macuata-Bua 1137 Baravi Primary School Solar Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1610 Namuka District School Solar Intermittent Primary Macuata-Bua 1893 Namuka-I-Cake Primary Solar Intermittent School Primary Macuata-Bua 1135 Waibunabuna Primary School Solar N Primary Macuata-Bua 2587 Kavula Banikea Infant School #N/A N N Secondary Macuata-Bua 1884 Ahmadiyya Muslim Secondary FEA Intermittent School (Voloca) Secondary Macuata-Bua 9264 Vunimoli Islamia College FEA N Secondary Macuata-Bua 1134 Bua Central College Generator Intermittent Secondary Macuata-Bua 1272 Duavata Secondary School Generator Intermittent Secondary Macuata-Bua 9252 Immaculate Conception Generator Intermittent College Secondary Macuata-Bua 9257 Lekutu Secondary School Generator Intermittent Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1713 Namataku District School FEA N Unstable Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1704 Raunitogo Primary School FEA N Unstable and intermittent Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1720 Ratu Ilaisa Memorial School FEA N Unstable and intermitten Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1718 Tagaqe District School FEA N Unstable and
PAGE 69 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Y/N Y/N Type District Code School Power DEO category Text Q5 Q1 Q7 intermittent Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1732 Nawai Public School FEA N Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1764 Yalavou Public School Generator N Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1997 Thomas Baker Memorial Generator N School Secondary Nadroga-Navosa 9749 Vakacereivalu Memorial Generator Unstable and School intermittent Primary Nausori 1801 Dravuni District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1802 Lutu District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1806 Nabukaluka District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1809 Nairukuruku District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1811 Nakorosule District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1814 Natoaika Village School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1829 Nakini Village School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1846 Viria Public School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1854 Ratu Alipate Primary School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1857 Nadakuni District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1877 Naboro Sawanikula Primary FEA Poor/not downloading School exams Primary Nausori 1878 Coloi-Naivakacere Primary FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2112 Nukui Village School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2121 Burebasaga District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2504 Rokotuivatu District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2511 Daku Village School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2519 Namena District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2522 Ratu Asaeli Rokovucago FEA Poor/not downloading Memo School exams Primary Nausori 2526 Dakuivuna Village School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2527 Wainibuka School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2536 Ucunivanua District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2539 Naseva Village Scvhool FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2566 Nailagotabua Primary School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2102 Vutia District School 2 FEA N
PAGE 70 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Y/N Y/N Type District Code School Power DEO category Text Q5 Q1 Q7 Primary Nausori 2533 Vugalei District School FEA N Primary Nausori 2554 Vunimono Sanatan Dharam FEA N - Primary School Primary Nausori 2556 Visama Sanatan Dharam FEA N School Primary Nausori 2562 Pt Shreedhar Maharaj College FEA N Primary Nausori 1875 Turagarua Primary School Generator Has to go to nearby location Primary Nausori 1813 Nakurukuruvakatini District Generator Intermittent Sch Primary Nausori 1821 Wainawaqa District School Generator Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1860 Nawaisomo Primary School Generator Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2510 Kaba Primary School Generator Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2515 Nailega District School Solar Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 2546 Naqia SDA Primary School Solar N Primary Nausori 2508 Dawasamu District school Unknown Poor/not downloading exams Primary Nausori 1887 Dawasamu Secondary #N/A N Unstable Primary Nausori 2541 Ratu Kadavulevu School #N/A N Unstable and intermittent Primary Nausori 1855 Lomaivuna Settlement School #N/A N Primary Nausori 2579 Wainibuku Hart Primary #N/A N N School Primary Nausori 1804 Muaira District School FEA Poor/not downloading exams Secondary Nausori 9422 Tailevu North College FEA N Unstable and intermittent Secondary Nausori 9413 Lomaivuna High School #N/A N Poor Secondary Nausori 9434 St Vincent College Unknown Intermittent Primary Ra 2004 Vatukacevaceva Village FEA N Stable but slow School Primary Suva 2393 Suva Muslim College FEA Unstable and intermittent Primary Suva 1873 Ahmadiyya Muslim College FEA N Primary Suva 2336 Gospel High School FEA N Primary Suva 2411 Vashist Muni Memorial FEA N School Primary Suva 2108 Rukua Raviravi Primary School Generator N Primary Suva 1902 Namosi Catholic Primary #N/A N Unstable Primary Suva 1894 Wainimakutu Secondary #N/A Unstable and School intermittent Primary Suva 1812 Kalabu Primary School #N/A N Primary Suva 2350 Suva Grammar School #N/A N Secondary Suva 9428 Namosi Secondary School Generator Unstable
PAGE 71 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 10: Lower Priority List (62 schools with “slow but stable” connections)
The study identified 62 schools that were not flagged by the DEOs, but which responded to the survey and reported “stable but slow” Internet connectivity.
Type District Code School Power Text Q5 Primary Ba-Tavua 1025 Tavua District School FEA Stable but slow Primary Ba-Tavua 1069 Natawa Primary School FEA Stable but slow Primary Ba-Tavua 1092 S G N Khalsa Primary School FEA Stable but slow Primary Ba-Tavua 1095 Navoli Sanatan Primary School FEA stable but slow Primary Ba-Tavua 3018 Rarawai Muslim School Own Generator Stable but slow Primary Ba-Tavua 3041 Nilsen College FEA Stable but slow Primary Ba-Tavua 1055 Karavi Public School FEA Stable but slow at times Secondary Cakaudrove 9261 Saint Bedes College Solar Stable but slow Primary Eastern 1330 Bulou Dolele Memorial School Own Generator Stable and slow Primary Eastern 1326 Galoa Village School Own Generator Stable but slow Primary Eastern 1407 Onolevu District School No Supply Stable but slow Primary Eastern 1442 Cikobia Village School Own Generator Stable but slow Primary Eastern 1445 Ratu Finau Secondary School Own Generator Stable but slow Primary Eastern 1451 Cakova Village School Own Generator Stable but slow Primary Eastern 1447 Navesi Primary School FEA Stable but very slow Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 1008 Dreketi Sangam School FEA Stable but slow Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 1033 Ralete Primary School FEA Stable but slow Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 1060 Jasper Williams Primary FEA Stable but slow Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 3002 Sabeto Muslim Primary FEA Stable but slow Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 3020 Wairabetia Muslim FEA Stable but slow Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 3069 Nadi Muslim Primary School FEA Stable but slow Primary Lautoka-Yasawa 1050 Andrews Primary School FEA Stable sometimes slow Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa 9361 Ba Provincial Free Bird Institute FEA Stable but slow Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa 9377 Drasa Secondary School FEA Stable but slow Secondary Lautoka-Yasawa 9607 Maharishi Sanatan College #N/A Stable but slow Labasa School for Special Stable and fair but sometimes very Primary Macuata-Bua 1678 FEA Education slow Primary Macuata-Bua 1657 Nabekavu Primary School FEA Stable and slow Primary Macuata-Bua 1625 Vunimoli Islamia School Own Generator Stable but slow Primary Macuata-Bua 1630 Lagalaga Sanatan Primary School FEA Stable but slow Primary Macuata-Bua 1633 Daku Primary School FEA Stable but slow Primary Macuata-Bua 1652 Valebasoga Public School FEA Stable but slow Tabucola Valibar Sangam Primary Primary Macuata-Bua 1654 Stable but slow School FEA Primary Macuata-Bua 1655 Navoalevu Primary School FEA stable but slow Primary Macuata-Bua 1673 Tabia Sanatan College FEA stable but slow Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1712 Mavua District School FEA Stable and slow Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1734 Cuvu College FEA Stable but slow Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1747 Sigatoka Methodist Primary School FEA Stable but slow Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1748 Tuva Primary School Own Generator Stable but slow
PAGE 72 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Type District Code School Power Text Q5 Bainimarama Vatutoka Primary Primary Nadroga-Navosa 1275 FEA Stable but slow School - Secondary Nadroga-Navosa 9384 Kavanagasau Secondary School Own Generator Stable but slow Secondary Nadroga-Navosa 9393 Saint Teresa of Lisieux College FEA Stable but slow Primary Nausori 1842 Koroqaqa Primary School FEA stablbe but slow Primary Nausori 2518 Namata District School FEA Stable and slow Primary Nausori 2537 Tai District School FEA Stable and slow Primary Nausori 2120 Nakaikogo S D School FEA stable but slow Primary Nausori 2501 Nausori Primary School FEA Stable but slow Primary Nausori 2520 Namalata District School FEA Stable but slow Saint Vincent de Paul Primary Primary Nausori 2524 Stable but slow School FEA Primary Nausori 2552 Krishna Vedic School FEA Stable but slow Primary Nausori 2557 Krishna Janardhan School Stable but slow Primary Nausori 2509 Dravo District School Stable but slow at times Secondary Nausori 9832 Nausori Special Education School Stable but slow In good weather, stable and fair, Secondary Nausori 9439 Wainimala Secondary School FEA most time stable but slow Secondary Nausori 9420 Nasinu Muslim College Own Generator Stable but slow Primary Ra 2017 Malake Village School FEA Stable but slow Primary Ra 2042 Naria Primary School FEA Stable but slow / unstable at times Secondary Ra 9020 Ra High School FEA Stable but slow Primary Suva 2340 Arya Samaj Primary School FEA Stable but low Primary Suva 2360 Yat Sen Primary School Own Generator Stable but slow Primary Suva 2406 Burenitu Village School FEA Stable but slow Primary Suva 2355 Nehru Memorial School FEA Stable but slow sometimes Primary Suva 2330 D A V College Stable but very slow
PAGE 73 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 11: Mini Case Studies
Nabobuco District School, Nausori District (ID 1828)
“Children love the Internet in the classroom. It is empowering for their learning.” – Head Teacher, Mr Akuila Cama
Key lessons learned The bottom-up approach to school development planning works well when the market is able to provide an affordable solution. Schools that take ownership and develop their own ICT plans in collaboration with their management are best able to meet operational and curricular needs. The good connectivity is creating dynamics, the Internet being integrated into teaching, community engagement and computer education. Good connectivity is not sufficient to persuade some administrations to opt for online delivery of exams, due to the perceived cost of printing/copying locally.
Visited 17 February 2017 Akuila Cama, Head Teacher Seremaia Vueti, A/T, Mesake Tamadra, Chairman, School Management Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
This remote school was indicated in FEMIS as having “no Internet” but, on visiting the school, it was found the school is managing very well using a commercial solution suited to their needs. Before the school got its Internet connection, “they were always behind, and dependent on outdated text books” according to the Head Teacher.
School ICT policies and history Arrangements are sustainable because they are linked to policies developed by the school and its management. In 2015, the school took ownership of the need for a good connection and decided on an approach in a meeting with management. Its policy on computers and Internet is not yet written down. The school subsequently made its own enquires and decided on the Digicel package with the Blade modem. This cost was $49 and the plan is $47 per month for 40GB. This is working well and the electricity supply is reliable, as the school is close to a major FEA switching station. The modem is connected to one PC in the school office, and teachers can use their laptops within the 10m range of the modem Wi-Fi. The school is arranged fortuitously with all classrooms within Wi-Fi coverage.
Exam delivery mode – The school administration has opted for hard copy delivery of exam papers, despite their reliable connectivity. This is preferred because, in the school’s opinion, it is cheaper, saving on printing and copying. The Head Teacher collects the papers from Suva.
Usage – Used for official uses only, including: updating FEMIS every day by the Admin Officer FEMIS used to access syllabus, materials, text books and OERs, such as the phonetics resources planning to install overhead e-learning facility in the classroom the teachers have a projector and use it in classroom teaching for example, using Internet for class research activity on New Zealand used for T&L, for example, using a laptop as an audio-visual aid to learn about the solar system children love the ICT/Internet in classes, it is “empowering for their learning”.
PAGE 74 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Communications, community and outreach The school has a Facebook page maintained by the Admin Officer. It will consider a communications plan this year. It will allow community access to the computer lab when it is repaired (damaged by TC Winston). There is demand for computer training after school. The school would pay for training, such as basic Internet use, Skype, etc., from the school budget. The school has a computer class in the timetable. The Admin Officer (female) does the training. The school has 14 computers and is planning to connect them to the Internet when they are replaced.
PAGE 75 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Wainimala Secondary School (ID 9439) and Ratu Alipate Memorial School (ID 1854)
Key lessons learned The centrally managed government telecentre (GTC) is difficult to fix quickly if something goes wrong. Despite a simple problem easily put right, poor communication has resulted in the GTC being offline for months. The reliance on the GTC has meant that the two schools’ administrations have not taken ownership of managing connectivity to meet their operational and curricular needs. The GTC is using a fixed microwave link. As the facility is obviously in place and there is line of sight (LOS), this is the recommended solution for the secondary school. The primary school may find an Unwired 4G modem placed by the window to be the most flexible solution.
Visited 17 February 2017 Apisai Qereqeretabua, Principal, Wainimala Sec Jope Seru, Head Teacher, Rt Alipate Mem Phyllis Fraser, Vice Principal, Wainimala Sec Jione Marie Joseph, AP, Rt Alipate Mem Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
These two schools are co-located. The interview took place just after a new administration had started at the secondary school. The school has a government telecentre (GTC) located on the campus. School ICT policies and history The new Principal was busy reviewing and improving school management and policies. The school is currently relying on the GTC which is offline. It has a Digicel dedicated microwave link but it is not working. The school reported it had been lobbying Digicel but had not got anywhere and was considering “writing to complain”. However, when the consultant discussed this with Digicel, it said the issue was overgrown vegetation which was interrupting the line of sight, and that some trimming of trees was required. Neither school has taken ownership and purchased a modem although they are aware of the budget. The secondary school is using a personal modem (Digicel Unwired 4G modem) to update FEMIS. The primary school is using the Head Teacher’s own mobile. The two schools are starting to consider a connectivity plan as the schools need separate facilities, because the telecentre is too busy. At the schools, the Digicel signal is weak and weather-affected, but they do manage to download movies especially at night. They have to access the signal on the phone by putting in window etc. When working, the GTC point-to-point link works well. Exam delivery mode They have opted for hard copy. The cost is the issue and they fear their remoteness, if they do not prepare early to get hard copy exam papers. Usage The GTC is used free of charge. It is managed by the GTC program, not the school. It has six computers divided into two parts – students and community. As space is limited, community access is limited to 20 minutes each. The GTC has some performance issues, sometimes the connection is slow. It is used by both primary and secondary. Children use it after hours. Computer training is given. It is dependent on centralised tech support. The typical uses are: geography; agriculture; download documents on farming technology; driven by teachers’ own initiatives. Communications, community and outreach – The school has a FB page. It has not been recently updated.
PAGE 76 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
PAGE 77 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Bemana District School, Nadroga-Navosa District (ID 1740)
Key lessons learned This school’s connectivity is representative of many. Much of the time it is workable and FEMIS can be updated, but it is unstable especially during rain and, as a result, the teachers do not trust it for critical uses, such as exam downloading. However, coverage was measured across the school area and it should be easy to improve the connectivity with a modem upgrade. The reason why the school has not done so already may relate to lack of school policies to focus on the educational needs. This can be improved by instituting some pressure at the divisional level, complemented by some model policies.
Visited 18 February 2017 Keiw Kafoa, Head Teacher Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
This school is using a small Vodafone Pocket Wi-Fi costing $65, and paying whenever they need to recharge, making use of special offers such as “bonanza” recharge, 30GB for $25. They have to pay for recharge at Sigatoka. Coverage is patchy, and when the consultant tested, it varied from good to a nil result. The Head Teacher stated that the service was good on a sunny day but intermittent in rain and slow to load. The school is able to access FEMIS and update it reliably. The connection needs improving.
School ICT policies and history The modem is owned by the school, purchased through the budget. This was initiated by the H/T and validated by the management. Internet policy is verbal. School policy for Internet access is controlled by password and is for official uses only, including: FEMIS research by teachers students assignments.
Teachers have their own laptops. The school has no computer lab but is planning for one. They “really need children to be exposed to IT and the Internet”.
Exam delivery mode Due to the unstable connection, the school opts for hard copy. If coverage is 100%, it would be okay to download but for now, they wish to be safe, and rely on hard copies.
Usage Used to update FEMIS every day by the Admin Officer. The Admin Officer and HT use the Internet mostly. Other uses include: teacher forums, especially FEMIS and others set up by teachers in social media for research, teachers use their own devices via the school modem girls receive IT lessons after exams used with a projector, e.g. films.
Communications, community and outreach The school is planning a school communication strategy including: outreach and information for parents cluster communications exchanging resources and ideas (forums).
PAGE 78 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
PAGE 79 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Natutale Primary School, Nadroga-Navosa District (ID 1765)
Key lessons learned This school demonstrates how some basic guidance and training would help the school to optimise its expensive VSAT connection. As the staff has no knowledge of how to monitor usage (easily done through the TFL website), the risk of exceeding the monthly quota prompts them to restrict usage more than they might otherwise, reducing the benefits of connectivity. As power for the Wi-Fi is only available when the generator is on, the Internet is not available at times when it is most needed in the day. Solar power is, therefore, recommended for all schools using generators, to power routers and at least one access device. The MoE needs to develop a policy for exam downloading that allows for VSAT rain fade. In such remote schools, the clustering could be a practicable way to share skills.
Visited 18 February 2017 Iliana L Tanimanaqe, Head Teacher Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
This school is situated in an area with no mobile coverage detectable. School ICT policies and history This remote school was using TFL’s CDMA (64kbps) service but that “was not working well”. The school was nominated by the District Office for a TFL VTSAT under the Prime Minister’s Office VTSAT project, which was installed in early 2016. The school only has generator power, which charges the VSAT battery and thus the VSAT is always on. However, the router and computers have no power, so they cannot use it when the generator is not running. Connect was costing them $60-70 per month, paid at the post office when the statement came (post paid). This is seen as expensive, especially when generator has to be used, adding the cost of fuel. The school is hoping to get solar power and has been told it may receive it. The VTSAT cost depends on usage – if they use Facebook (etc.) a lot, the cost is high. Although the consultant was later told by TFL that there is a portal where they can log in and monitor usage, no-one at the school had been aware of it. The main concern is to keep within budget. The first payment was $1000 but then it came down as they learned to restrict usage. It is now costing $100–200 per month (the monthly charge for schools for 30GB is $173 plus VAT). The VSAT access is controlled by password access. Teachers are able to change password. The Head Teacher looks after updating FEMIS. On occasion, rain fade is noticed, up to “half an hour sometimes”. Exam delivery mode The school opts for hard copy delivery of exams due to concern over reliability with weather and if the generator is not working etc. It would opt for downloading if reassured.
Usage The Internet is used for updating FEMIS every day, email, teaching and learning resources (they also use CDs), and using the small computer lab in the library (four computers and a Wi-Fi router). Teachers use it for researching and downloading resources. One teacher has IT skills and acts as the IT instructor. Year 7 and 8 students receive training in library. The VTSAT is helping a lot, but has to be controlled because of the costs of fuel and user time is limited. The community cannot access it, because there is no time available, as the generator is only on for a limited time.
Communications, community and outreach – No school website but teachers have personal FB pages.
PAGE 80 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
PAGE 81 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Bayly Memorial School, Ra District (ID 2024)
Key lessons learned This school demonstrates where some guidance with some recommended solutions for schools in fringing coverage areas could make a difference. It shows how schools try their best, make enquiries but sometimes get stuck. Some basic advice embedded at the District level would help here. There is some ability to reliably connect in one location, and the school has been updating FEMIS. An improved high gain device would most likely work well in this location. This small school has an ICT budget of $2700 per year, or $240 per month, and judges a typical monthly outlay for Internet of $65 as quite expensive when other IT costs and fuel for a generator are competing. There are some misconceptions about the use of websites for outreach – a model policy would help.
Visited 19 February 2017 Jotish Jagdish Ram, Head Teacher Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
This school is situated in an area with only weak, patch coverage from Vodafone. Digicel is also intermittent and weak. FEMIS can be updated in the office lounge but not in the room next door. There are certain spots where coverage is okay. The school uses a generator, although an FEA line is slowly advancing towards the school.
School ICT policies and history The Head Teacher is new at the school in 2017. The school has been trying to find the best provider and has made enquiries with the local ISP offices but has not got anywhere. The previous Head Teacher also tried, using Digicel, but also gave up when it gave a poor result. In the meanwhile, the HT is using his own phone and tethering. He is unaware of modems they could be trying.
A monthly cost of $65 is perceived as expensive for a small school when printing, ink and paper and other IT costs have to be catered for, even with a $240 per month computer budget at this school (2700 p.a.).
Exam delivery mode The school opts for hard copy delivery for the reasons stated (but in fact they could travel a short distance along the main highway to find good connectivity).
Usage The teachers use the connection for FEMIS, teacher research, lesson preparation, circulars and email, and downloading materials. Students have no access as there is no Wi-Fi or computer lab.
Communications, community and outreach The school has a communication strategy. Internet website etc. may not help with outreach as many families live in very rural areas, where they have no way to connect or recharge. In many places, they do not even get a TV signal. The school notes that social media users are mobile and news will get back to them.
The community is scattered but the school is planning a community program, where the community can come in for extracurricular learning. This can happen when the library is set up. It is a vision of school- community engagement – there will be demand as it will save people travel costs.
PAGE 82 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
PAGE 83 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Navesau Adventist High School, Ra District (ID 2048)
Key lessons learned This large secondary school demonstrates that VSATs can have technical issues where people get stuck, are not able to understand or find a solution, or communicate properly with the ISP. Some better training and guidance passed on to new administrations would help. However, the VSAT is redundant as the school has line of sight to a Vodafone tower from one location. The secondary school is better suited to a fixed wireless link with a dedicated, unlimited plan. A small modem is not sufficient for such schools without a LAN to distribute access around the school where it is needed. The school has a strong vision and excellent ICT/communication strategy, demonstrating a needs-driven approach to connectivity.
Visited 19 February 2017 Sinail Sumo, Principal Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
School ICT policies and history This school has a TFL VSAT, solar powered, with two card phones installed in 2007. It used to have Internet service but the Principal was told by the previous admin there was a glitch and no-one came to fix it, so nothing was done. TFL told the consultant that the issue was with non-payment of the bill. The phone still works. There is patchy coverage by Vodafone in certain spots only. The dining room / boys dorm has LOS with a Vodafone tower and thus a dedicated fixed link is possible. Meanwhile, the school uses a Pocket Wi-Fi modem which can give consistent 3G speeds. It is on the Vodafone special schools plan, $65 for 70GB. The school campus is too large area for a small device, and it needs a fixed connection and proper LAN. The school has a ICT plan (not written down yet), based around its computer class for Years 11-13 and a lab with 30 computers, which are fairly new, donated from Australia. It plans to wire up a LAN. The strategy is the school’s own initiative - the Principal has approved it and then School Board endorsed it. The school has no grid electricity as yet, which is the major issue. The staff worry about damage to computers with the generator and unreliable power. Exam delivery mode – The school is opting for hard copy delivery because of its dependence on generators to print and copy. Staff also mentioned the cost of printing, fuel for generator etc. Usage – The school has no problems updating FEMIS. The Internet would be used for the following if they had proper access: computer class with Internet class; research online F6+; community access possibly; and T&L. Teachers are using projectors to teach using online resources in class already. Communications, community and outreach The school has an ambitious social media strategy driven by needs (it is an International school). However, it is managed by one champion teacher (Arts teacher). The strategy needs to be made official policy so it will become permanent. The strategy includes the following aspects: to inform and share information with parents and stakeholders (parents need information – many are in rural areas or overseas Solomon Islands etc. (it is an international school) keep the school FB page updated school events, pictures, video clips, newsletters, school programs to invite feedback a separate FB group for teachers only to share timetables, coordinate work etc.
PAGE 84 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
PAGE 85 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Bucalevu Primary School, Ra District (ID 2046)
Key lessons learned This school is representative of schools that have tried to overcome poor mobile network connectivity using “signal boosters”. Signal boosters are designed to bring good signals from outdoors into buildings where the reception may otherwise be weak due to shielding. They are not designed to create a strong signal from a weak one. They amplify the noise, as well as the weak signal (i.e. the S/N ratio is not improved ). This school did not have any success with this method.
Visited 19 February 2017 Ilaifia Ratuwere, Principal Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
School ICT policies and history The school used to have a TFL booster installed, with yagi antenna. It worked for a year then stopped in 2014. It was using a service called TFL “flashnet”. The school told TFL but it did not come to fix the issue.
Today, there is both Vodafone and Digicel network coverage available, but it is very weak and intermittent. When the interview took place, no signal was detected but the school says it can connect with Digicel at night to update FEMIS.
This school demonstrates that boosters are very hit and miss, not designed for purpose.
PAGE 86 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Nabala Secondary School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 9249)
“Anything is possible.” – Principal, Nabala School
Key lessons learned This school demonstrates what a school can do for itself, when there is a guiding policy framework and clear educational needs linked to connectivity, plus a viable market place with connectivity solutions and local technical support. The school has found a local solution that, in principle, is a good model for other similar schools and includes technical support. This can now be propagated through District Offices. The case study also illustrates the need to have minimum standards of installation, in line with ITC expectations. In this way, a good partnership with the private sector can be established. The school used to have to bus students to Labasa weekly for Internet access for curricular requirements; the good connection has been transformational. The only issue with the solution is that it is not dedicated with unlimited access suitable for the upcoming tablet project.
Visited 22 February 2017 Alefina Lebaivalu Tuilevuka, School Principal Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
School ICT policies and history Nabala had a GTC using a VSAT but it was shifted to another site in 2013. Since then, it has had no Internet access. The current Principal arrived in 2016 and tried to do something, motivated by the following needs: students need the Internet to do projects teachers need it for research the school used to have to hire trucks to take students to Labasa to do Internet research.
The school has poor network coverage, very patchy, and the only location for a voice signal is 100m away from the main school buildings. The Principal went to Vodafone and Digicel. TFL quoted too much for her budget for a VTSAT solution. Then a local company, Webteck, approached the school, offering a solution using a modem situated where there is a stable signal using a high gain external antenna, and connected to the school with a wireless network bridge. The company offered a full package for an affordable $2900, including installation and support. The school then has to pay the carrier (Vodafone) for the package they choose, which is $75 per month for 130GB. The school is “delighted” with the new fast Internet connection. It has been quite transformational for the school. On inspection, we noticed some issues with standard of installation. However, as long as these are improved on, this is a good solution. The consultant has made some suggestions for good practice in Section 6. Usage A school policy is in the making, not in writing yet. Usage is driven by the well-defined needs of secondary schools including: FEMIS communication with MoE, circulars etc. students and teachers research computer lab with nine computers the school will receive tablets – connection easily upgraded to an unlimited plan will opt for downloading of e-exams this year.
PAGE 87 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
PAGE 88 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Naduri District School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1609)
Key lessons learned This school illustrates an issue common to many schools situated in areas of fringing coverage. A mobile signal is stable in one location in the school, but not where it is needed. Some practical guidance embedded with the District Offices and a specification for schools to use to approach solution providers would be very useful. The school also shows how in practice, placing a modem outdoors makes a difference in weak coverage areas. The modem is a personal one, showing that when schools cannot find a suitable solution and take ownership, they are more likely to rely on temporary set-ups. Naduri is an AQEP-assisted school and is driven by quality. This is evident in the priority the school is giving to finding an acceptable connectivity.
Visited 22 February 2017 Josefa Vosaira, School Principal Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
School ICT policies and history The school is close to, and has similar patchy coverage issues, as Nabala. It is using an Unwired 4G modem. This is stable but very slow at times. The reception drops to 2 bars in rain. The modem is kept outside due to this. The modem is not owned by the school, but it is a personal one belonging to the Admin Officer. The school has been taking the initiative to seek out a better solution (if better information provided, this is a demonstration of the bottom-up approach). The school shows strong motivation to find a solution, i.e. the connectivity is driven by perceived needs. Admin has made proposals to management and has written to the PMO office to ask about VTSAT. However, they have heard about the Nabala solution and have arranged for a survey. The survey can be paid for from the ICT budget. Usage The perceived needs for connectivity include: teacher research students need the Internet - i.e., for social sciences, the student research is examinable poor communications have held up their program in the past they have no computers for students as yet, but plan to do computer classes using the MoE guide and text books.
Exam delivery mode At the moment, the school opts for hard copies as it cannot rely on the current connectivity. When improved connectivity is ensured, it will consider online delivery.
PAGE 89 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
PAGE 90 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Cadranasiga District School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1606)
Key lessons learned This school was listed as having solar power, but we found a small, poorly designed and maintained PV system far too undersized to meet school IT requirements. It was not working due to wiring issues and the batteries also seemed to be failing. This illustrates technical issues and needs concerning solar power. We cannot assume that, if there is solar power, it will be sufficient or able to support the connectivity. This leads to a recommendation that if there is no FEA grid power, schools should provide a dedicated solar power system for the connectivity (only a small PV system required but must be well designed). Just as is the case with monitoring Internet usage, training for monitoring school solar power status (and provision of simple tools) is essential in maintaining it and ensuring it lasts. This school has tried hard to find options for improved connection but it only got so far. Therefore, providing some advice at District level will assist in these cases.
Visited 23 February 2017 Kelepi Colata, Head Teacher Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant School ICT policies and history The school is an example of a school that has solar power supply. However, as described above, the supply has issues and was not working. The system is poorly dimensioned with insufficient PV panels and oversized batteries, which cannot be kept reliably charged and, therefore, have failed early. The installation is very poor quality with loose wiring, now corroded. The system is insufficient to operate a photocopier. The school was able to monitor battery voltage but did not understand fully how to evaluate it. They had no tools, such as a tester, which could be used to repair the wiring faults (by qualified electricians). With a solar power system, a different energy regime is required. Equipment must be sourced with this in mind. Thus, a standard office photocopier might be grossly unsuited to a small solar power system and alternatives should be sought that can meet day-time needs when it is not convenient to operate the generator. Likewise, PC computers can vary in power consumption. Donated secondhand computers will often be much more inefficient than new models (sometimes by a factor of 3-4). Thus, the school’s energy usage policies must be designed around the solar power system and it cannot be treated as “free power”. When installing solar power designed for general purposes, it is equally important to train the school and management (to ensure knowledge is embedded locally – teachers get transferred). Teachers need to be able to monitor the status and evaluate their consumption based on the capacity of the system. This can be very empowering (see the example in the Solomon Islands: www.solar4schools.org.sb). If the school is not able to monitor the solar power usage, it will lead to over-use and premature failing of the batteries, which are the most expensive component to replace. The community has prioritised electricity supply. FEA is coming closer but it is still 10km away. The school has TFL coverage (CDMA) but, although the tower is in sight, the reception is very poor and only available in some buildings. This shows that some towers have issues too, and they are not always fixed promptly, sometimes because the users do not know how to report the issue. The school can update FEMIS but as CDMA is only 64-256kbps, the connectivity is not sufficient for curricular needs. The use of a USB modem without any routing and LAN is also limiting access. The Head Teacher has enquired with TFL but was told that, as the tower is close, they do not need a better modem as the signal is available. Thus, the Head Teacher has not been able to follow up further. This shows how teachers can come up against a brick wall when they lack the skills to communicate technical needs. The recommendation will be to provide guidance at a District level to help school administrations discover the full range of options in clear language that can be understood by teachers and local ISP retail outlets.
PAGE 91 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
The Vodafone network is available (2 bars) on the beach. There is a possibility to install a high gain outdoor modem with Wi-Fi or a dedicated link at the edge of the school campus closest to the beach. The school owns the TFL “Nomad” modem. Connecting to TFL is only possible at the school office. Priorities for Internet would be teaching and learning, teachers updating subject knowledge and research, “connecting students with world outside”, admin efficiency and email. The school was pleased to learn about OERs on FEMIS. They are not using forums but understand the utility. Poor communications have slowed down their activities in the past. The school opted for hard copy delivery of exam papers because it is not possible to ensure downloading reliability with this solution. Communications, community and outreach The school communication plan includes monthly newsletters, sharing information from the Ministry with parents, health information for the community, parental consent, information on events under the MoE calendar and circulars. The school has a Facebook page which the HT updates. Updating FEMIS takes around one hour per day.
PAGE 92 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Korotolutolu Primary School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1661)
“We are struggling but we are trying our best.” – Head Teacher, Korotolutolu PS.
Key lessons learned This is a model school illustrating how a solar power supply at a school should be designed and supported. The design, installation standards, school policies for maintaining and using the power are excellent. The Head Teacher had already received solar power training and has put this to good use. This shows why such training should be recognised and a consideration in teacher transfer policy. This ensures that the solar power will support connectivity and thereby support the educational and operational needs. This school illustrates the difficulties faced when there is no connectivity. The HT has to travel weekly to another town to update FEMIS, and monthly to Labasa. He has to call other schools to check if any MoE email circulars have been issued. The school has an excellent ICT plan for students, but is unable to realise it. This school would be a good candidate for offline “local cloud” servers as an interim measure, providing students with some regular exposure to web-based learning until full Internet connectivity is provided.
Visited 23 February 2017 Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
School ICT policies and history This school is in an area with no coverage for data. Even voice calls are difficult but just possible from some locations in the campus. The teachers have to travel 20km to Seaqaqa town once a week or Labasa once a month and have to call other schools to find out if important emails and circulars have been issued. The school is constructing a Kindy and has to make reports, poor communication hinders this. They want the Kindy to be a creative environment, and will integrate ICTs and audio-visual aids. This is reflected in their computer lab which combines an area with PCs with a play area. The school has shown initiative, and arranged for Digicel and Vodafone to conduct a survey in 2015 but this did not lead to anything. Therefore, some guidance and intervention from central education authorities is needed. This school might be connected with fixed microwave link, otherwise a VSAT is needed. Network coverage in this area is likely to improve so a VSAT may become redundant in a few years. This is a model school in respect of solar electrification. The solar power supply is extremely well-designed, installed to highest standards and fit for purpose. The only criticism is that it uses wet batteries that need maintenance, but the school is managing very well. However, a new admin might not have the training and this should be a consideration when transferring teachers. The solar is also used for houses and school, the school imposes controls. They also have a solar-powered water bore hole. The school is implementing an excellent program but is held back by lack of connectivity. It has eight computers but cannot comply with requirements for students to do research, which is now examinable. One work-around for such schools, until they achieve full connectivity, would be to use an offline “local cloud” server. These devices (as described in Section 6) can also serve as gateway servers that can control access.
PAGE 93 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
PAGE 94 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Seaqaqa Primary School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1641)
Key lessons learned This is a model primary school for integrating the Internet and ICTs. It is driven by needs, both the requirements of MoE and its own school quality and school improvement needs, including all four dimensions – financial, technological, organisational and social (community engagement). The school has acquired robust and redundant connectivity and is integrating many innovative ways, including paperless administration – internal circulars are sent via email rather than by hand, which required visiting all 17 classrooms for signatures. With a strong ICT vision and direction from the management, (reflecting community needs) the school has installed a multipurpose computer and workshop space. It is enthusiastic about online exam delivery, emphasising the efficiency and demonstrating that fears expressed by some schools of the costs and difficulty of copying papers just in time, may be unjustified.
Visited 23 February 2017 Sunil Dutt, Head Teacher Lakhan Kumar, Chairman Narain Sharma, AQEP, Education Officer David Leeming, Consultant
School ICT policies and history This is an exemplary school, pioneering sustainable connectivity. It has a good 3G modem router which can be connected to the school LAN. Coverage is stable 4G. The school a DSL connection from TFL as backup. The ICT is very well managed, with very strong school management who is actively involved.
The school has an advanced vision for ICT in education with advanced strategies, i.e. wanting to move to paperless school management using email (paper circulars have to be delivered to each of 17 classes, this takes so much time and effort). This is driven by community needs, as well as curricular needs.
The school understands how parent and community involvement is important. The computer lab is designed for multi-purposes, such as workshops. The school seeks partnerships to build on it.
Exam delivery mode Exams are being downloaded. The school is enthusiastic about this as “it saves MoE costs”. They like it, as it is so efficient. Other usage is driven by the need to improve educational efficiency and a communication strategy.
The school would appreciate designation as a GTC because: younger students need exposure it feels it can manage the GTC more effectively with the community parents need to be involved.
The school is seeking training and wishes to learn how to create websites (the school has a FB page).
PAGE 95 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
PAGE 96 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Ratu Luke Memorial School, Macuata-Bua District (ID 1110)
Key lessons learned This school demonstrates how poor connectivity can cause wastage, such as unnecessary travel expenses. For example, the Head Teacher travelled to Labasa to submit payment vouchers, because he was unable to upload scanned copies. Schools in this large category of schools with “intermittent” connectivity may respond well to a solution with upgraded high gain modems as described in Section 6. This case study also illustrates the need for a model school policy for access balancing the risks with the opportunities and benefits, and the need to install solar power for the modem in schools that use generators. This school also demonstrates that online exam delivery can be managed well – it need not be feared if there is at least one location in the school for a stable connection.
This school was not visited, but the Head Teacher was interviewed at the Northern Division office in Labasa on 22 February 2017. At the school, there is some Digicel and Vodafone coverage but it is generally poor. (The secondary school in Ratu Luke has TFL connection.) The primary school acquired an Unwired 4G modem in 2016 and pays $49 for the school rate monthly plan. Before this, the school had a Vodafone Pocket Wi-Fi, but Digicel is better, although it has weak coverage and is weather dependant. The Head Teacher has to carry the modem to a particular place in the school headquarters to get good signal. Full bars can show but the speed is still slow, and YouTube, for example, will be stop/start. The school sees the Internet as a tool to help with its workload, especially FEMIS. It takes the Admin Officer two hours a day to update FEMIS. If not updated regularly, it piles up. The reason the HT came to Labasa (where this interview was held) was because of payment vouchers; despite compressing them, he could not email them. Usage The school usage policies are mainly organised around administrative needs. The Head Teacher uses the connection, teachers can come and use the admin computer. An access policy was agreed in a meeting with teachers. The school has no current management. It is risk adverse regarding inappropriate use. Misuse would lead to distractions and risk going over quota data, leading to excess charges. A computer room is in the pipeline, to teach computer education to the students. The school has generator power and this is further limiting Internet availability. Fuel costs are paid from the admin budget. The school has 200 students so the ICT budget is $10,000, or $850 per month. The Head Teacher feels that $60-$100 per month for the Internet plan is reasonable, but over $200 per month would not be reasonable. Exam delivery mode For exam delivery, the HT opted for download. He says so far it has worked well although it is a “mammoth task printing / copying”. He keeps a plan B to get hard copies if there are problems. Communications, community and outreach The community has engaged well. Youths will be welcome, as well as secondary students, to study using Internet. The church elders came and requested to use Internet. Reliable Internet leads to consistency, less waste of time. They have training needs for basic computing.
PAGE 97 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 12: Examples of access technologies
Tethering Not acceptable because the device belongs to an individual. Unreliable performance. Using a phone The connectivity cannot be easily distributed as a modem to a local network. The school needs to take ownership and replace with a recommended modem router.
Head Teacher at Bayly PS is tethering a personal phone
Dongle Personal dongles are not recommended because the device only connects one CDMA computer (it can be shared but it still (TFL Connect depends on the host computer). If a 3G/4G Nomad dongle works well, then the school should service) replace it with a recommended modem using the best network, or follow the example described in Section 6.
Nomad dongles from TFL revert to 2G and 64kbps speed in most areas outside some towns. Where EVDO (3G) coverage is available, the speed is only 256–512 kbps. Head Teacher at Cadranasiga PS using a TFL 2G speeds may only just be enough for Nomad dongle (CDMA) critical applications, such as updating FEMIS and downloading exams, but not for general school uses, student research etc. CDMA is being phased out and upgraded to LTE by TFL. Not acceptable for schools, alternatives should be sought.
Pocket Wi-Fi / Not recommended. These kind of 3G MiFi modems modems are really designed for individuals to connect a few personal devices. They (and similar) may work well in areas with reasonable coverage and provide a wireless hotspot suitable for up to 10 computers within a few Cost: around metres range. They may be suitable in the FJD 25 interim but have no network port for expansion to a school network. In fringe coverage areas, they must be replaced by better modems with higher reception sensitivity as described in Section 6. Pocket Wi-Fi modem used at Bemana PS
PAGE 98 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Wireless Recommended for most schools if they 3G/4G provide stable 3G speeds or better. This modems with genre of modem router has reasonable integrated sensitivity and some have facility to connect routers external antenna. These have LAN ports and can provide connectivity to a school Mobile network LAN, computer lab. The wireless hotspot operators: can cater for 20–30 computers within 10m+ range.
TFL Schools should purchase 4G/LTE modems Digicel which are 3G compatible. In some areas Vodafone Huawei B880 3G modem sold by Vodafone with with weaker coverage, obtaining a reliable external antenna (Seaqaqa PS) stable 3G connection may be the higher Cost : priority and a 3G modem is preferred in the around FJD 50 interim. The modems with external antennas have higher sensitivity.
Schools should seek the advice of the ISP as their product ranges and networks will be updated from time to time.
Blade modem sold by Digicel Unwired (Naduri DS) Dedicated wireless broadband
(microwave link, WIMAX)
Offered by all the main ISPs
Vodafone Digicel Kidanet TFL
Kidanet’s standard product uses WIMAX
Cost: survey A dedicated microwave link (Digicel) at Wainimala SS Government Telecentre (left). and installation Typical small panel antenna equipment installed on a building (centre and right).
Example A fixed wireless link between a school and a network tower. Recommended solution for schools. set-up cost May be the only option in fringe coverage areas. Depends on having line of sight (LOS) with a (Kidanet) $199 tower. A survey is usually required. The equipment costs are not high and can be absorbed into the monthly plan. The outdoor antenna points towards a tower, and is connected to a small router inside the building, with a hotspot or wired LAN. This type of connection is dedicated, which means the connectivity is stable and consistent. Plans are often based on bandwidth with unlimited data. Suitable for small schools in fringe coverage and large schools that need dedicated and/or unlimited access. Throughput is from 30–40 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. Kidanet offers dedicated packages for schools.
PAGE 99 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
VSAT Satellite Internet is much more expensive than terrestrial. Schools should exhaust all Satellite over possibilities first, and find out if the Internet mobile operators are planning new coverage in their area in the near future, (TFL) which would make the VSAT redundant. As VSATs tend to be used in areas with FJD 18,000 no other coverage, there may also be with solar no grid electricity and generators or solar power power are needed. Ku-band VSATs do suffer from “rain fade” TFL has and can lose connectivity for periods of a special rates few minutes at a time during very heavy for schools - rain. Typically bandwidth speeds affordable for schools are lower, in the $180 per VTSAT at Natutale PS, Nadroga-Navosa. month for 256–512 kbps range. Maximum throughput 256kbps 30GB for TFL’s VTSAT platform is to be Satellite Internet services are generally available over increased to 6Mbps. all of Fiji equally, unlike mobile networks. The most common VSAT service used by schools is TFL’s VTSAT Ku-band product and service.
Kacific Kacific is worth mentioning as it will use Ka-band which requires only small, low- Ka-band cost terminals, which are much cheaper satellite service and easier to install than those currently to be launched available, and yet with high throughput in 2019 (up to 40Mbps). Bandwidth costs are also much lower than current VSAT services. This means Kacific will be a unique Ka terminals product suitable for schools where there is cost around no cheaper terrestrial option. While there is FJD $600- a range of satellite services available, $1000 schools can only access those re-sold by local ISPs. Kacific will need to have a A typical 60cm Ka terminal reseller available in Fiji.
Boosters Mobile signal boosters optimise indoor access to mobile Internet services. They Fixed reception are designed to transfer a signal from for mobile outside a building to inside, and cannot networks create coverage where there is none. If the signal is weak, they amplify the noise with the signal, leading to no advantage. There Mobile ISPs must be some stable level of signal to start with. The use of these devices is highly Cost – FJD subject to local conditions and surveys are $600-$1000 essential. This approach can work if there plus survey is a stable mobile signal in one particular location in the school, but not where it is needed. A booster fixed in that location can make a stable connection which can then be distributed to the school via a local A booster kit with outdoor and indoor unit network (wired or Wi-Fi). However, it is better to use a specially designed outdoor modem system as described in Section 6.
PAGE 100 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
A booster antenna used unsuccessfully at Bucalevu PS. One Labasa company Webteck is offering a solution using their own design (right). This involves a high gain parabolic antenna connected to a modem. Effectively, this is an external antenna for the modem Mobile access device installed by but is a fixed installation with the very high gain the Webteck company at Nabala SS. antenna mounted in the location where the network reception is stable. The modem is connected to the school’s LAN with a Wi-Fi bridge. TAF class these as accessories and they do not need licenses. See the Nabala case study for more details (Annex 11).
Cable, DSL, In urban areas, especially the larger schools have several options to access fast dedicated fibre etc broadband with physical connections. These include Digital Subscriber Line (DSL). TFL is now offering fibre direct to homes and businesses for ultra-fast Internet. As with all technologies, these will become more widely available and affordable over time.
Local cloud servers
Local cloud servers - (left) Aptus, Commonwealth of Learning and (right) Gateway servers - deployed in Vanuatu schools. Local cloud servers, such as the small, robust and low-cost devices shown above, can provide a simulated online environment for student research. This is useful if there is no quick solution to Internet connectivity, but also for increasing exposure for students with no Internet costs. These devices create a “local Internet” which computers can connect to either wirelessly or via a wired LAN. They include tools for web-based productivity, creativity and collaboration (such as wikis, blogs) and content including educational resources that can be browsed and searched, as if it were a “slice” of the Internet. USP’s e-learning unit can provide advice on these devices. The two examples above are very robust, fan-less devices that need almost no maintenance. They should be supplied with a wireless access point (the Aptus device includes one) and ideally should be solar powered in schools with no FEA supply.
PAGE 101 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 13: TFL’s VTSAT price schedules
PAGE 102 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 14: Consultations
The following stakeholders were consulted: Corporate Services, Ministry of Education Exam and Assessment Unit, Ministry of Education Finance Unit, Ministry of Education ITC Services, Fiji Government Telecommunications Authority of Fiji (TAF) Divisional and District Offices, Ministry of Education.
Following a desk review, the four main ISPs were consulted: Telecom Fiji Ltd (TFL) with their Connect mobile Internet, DSL and satellite Internet services Digicel Fiji Ltd and subsidiary company Unwired, offering mobile and dedicated wireless broadband Vodafone Fiji Ltd, also offering mobile and dedicated wireless broadband Kidanet, an ISP subsidiary of Fiji International Telecommunications (FINTEL), offering residential and corporate dedicated wireless broadband.
Coverage maps for all providers are available on the ISP’s individual websites. Only Vodafone provided additional coverage maps, but they were not high resolution. As stated in the report, coverage maps are of limited use, especially in the fringing coverage areas, as local geography and other factors can make a big difference.
Vodafone provided indications of schools that it may be able to connect using fixed wireless links (see Annex 7). TFL provided extensive information on schools served by its VTSAT solution. Digicel and Kidanet were consulted and contacted to follow up, but they did not provide any information additional to their public websites.
Virtual operators were not consulted because they use the same infrastructure as other providers (Vodafone in the case of Inkk Mobile).
Fiji may also have a number of ICT companies offering VSAT installation services, some of whom may be licensed to operate ISP services. The study did not directly reach out to these, but satellite coverage is well defined and, where there is no terrestrial service available, the appropriate step would be to conduct an open tender or invite expressions of interest to include those providers.
Two specific satellite broadband services were considered. These would need to be available through re-sellers to be sustainable with technical support. Two international providers were consulted to identify any resellers in Fiji.
1. Inmarsat in regard to the BGAN L-band service. Inmarsat only operates its satellites and does not manufacture access devices but works through its authorised partner network. No authorised partners in Fiji are listed on its website. It may be possible to use the BGAN service in Fiji but one would have to pay an offshore company for this service..
2. Kacific Broadband Satellites in regard to its Ka-band direct to home and interim Ku-band solution. In 2019, Kacific will launch a satellite offering high throughput, low-cost broadband through small affordable Ka-band terminals across most Pacific Islands countries. A local re-seller is needed.
PAGE 103 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 15: Generic specifications for recommended access technologies
Low cost option
LTE sharing dock with integrated Wi-Fi Supports LTE and 3G dongle Ethernet port for expansion to a local area network Mates with the USB dongle provided Example: Huawei AF23
USB dongle LTE/3G Unlocked Supports all frequencies / quad bands used by Fiji operators (2.5G / 3G / 4G / LTE) Ports for external MIMO antenna Example: Huawei 3372
External MIMO panel antenna (optional) 3G / 4G / LTE MIMO 800–2700 MHz Dual polarisation SMA male connector (2) Gain 44 x 2 dBi or similar Example: Lafalink LF-ANT4G01
The above can be located in a suitable indoor location (using the external antenna) or installed in a suitable outdoor equipment container and mounted on a pole or building exterior.
High performance outdoor modem option
High Performance Outdoor Cellular Modem Unlocked Supports all frequencies / quad bands used by Fiji operators (2.5G / 3G / 4G / LTE) Self contained outdoor package Supports PoE High gain multi-band antenna (e.g. Duxtel Yagi ARY-806-2500) PoE power supply Integrated router and Wi-Fi hotspot Mounting brackets (pole or wall mount) Example: DUXCEL-OUT: DuxCell outdoor 3G/LTE Cellular Wi-Fi router with Yagi and Sierra MC7304 4G card (www.duxtel.com.au)
PAGE 104 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
Annex 16: Pilot project outline
Intended outcome The intended outcome of the pilot project is that Fijian schools will benefit from connectivity improvements based on proven technology, sustainable strategies driven by curricular and operational needs, and education quality, and supported by consensus.
Objectives The objectives of the pilot project are to: validate the technical solutions recommended in the AQEP Internet connectivity study build consensus on good practices and parameters that define inclusive, needs-based schools connectivity develop training and guidance materials that will be made available to schools through FEMIS and the District Education Offices collectively evaluate and learn lessons prior to scaling up to a national school connectivity program.
The pilot will provide benefits to 10 schools and up to 2500 students. The pilot will ensure that an ensuing national program can proceed at a much lower cost per school, because of the streamlining of policies, embedded capacity and private-sector partnerships created during the pilot.
Activities (1) Through an open tender, procure up to 10 high performance outdoor modems and a similar number of the low-cost option. A generic specification should be provided to allow IT companies to innovate and offer their own solutions, as well as the option of supplying the specific examples recommended in this report. The tender should also invite local IT companies to install the equipment. The tender could be designed so that different companies are selected in each division, to improve access to local support.
(2) Validation of the recommended technical solutions. Depending on the budget, up to eight schools will be selected from the Top Priority and High Priority lists. These can be chosen for convenient access by project staff, and possibly one or two more remote schools (e.g. Kadava or Moala). o Commission IT companies to install high performance outdoor modems at up to six schools selected from the High Priority list. o Invite ISPs to provide terrestrial links (fixed wireless links) for two schools from the Top Priority list. Commission surveys and installation of links for those two schools. o Visits to each school for monitoring and evaluation.
(3) Distribute sets of the access equipment to Divisional Offices as demonstrators, and provide training.
(4) Review the schools that are using the VTSAT option, including those with shared access via the e-communities. Evaluate options for VSATs to be relocated at schools where they are needed. As a result of the first component, a clearer picture should emerge of the total number of additional schools requiring VSAT.
(5) Develop guidance and materials to be made available on FEMIS in the following areas: draft school policy generic specifications for recommended access technology (see Annex 15) guidance for schools training needs for schools.
PAGE 105 AQEP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY REPORT
(6) Hold an Internet Connectivity for Education workshop for DEOs to compare and agree on good practices to meet curricular and operational requirements, improve administrative efficiency, support teaching and learning, promote better communications and outreach. Review and develop the draft school policy and other guidance materials. (7) Evaluate the project results and provide guidelines for a national scale-up program to bring all the schools to the required standard of connectivity.
Implementation The pilot project may be implemented through the MoE IT Unit (ITU). It is suggested that the pilot sites are divided between Western/Central, Northern Division and Eastern Division. To reduce travel costs, most of the pilot school sites can be selected to be within easy driving distance from Suva and Labasa, and additionally one or two sites in more accessible outer islands.
Cost estimates The cost estimates below are indicative only. This assumes that MoE officers will be available for project activities. The number of pilot sites can be scaled either way.
Procurement and installation costs No. required Cost each Total (FJD) High performance modems 6 1800 10800 Installation 6 1700 10200 Low cost USB modem/routers 6 200 1200 External MIMO antennas 4 300 1200 Surveys/microwave links 2 2500 5000 Spares / demonstrators 4 1800 7200 Solar power supplies 8 1500 12000 Travel costs Car hire days 16 200 3200 Flights 8 500 4000 Accommodation 16 200 3200 2-day workshop for 9 DEOs Venue 2 500 1000 Accommodation 27 150 4050 Allowances 27 50 1350 Catering 18 25 450 Travel 9 500 4500 Expert consultants Estimated days inputs 21 1200 25200 Accomodation 14 250 3500 Flights 1 1000 1000 Total (FJD) 99,050
PAGE 106