Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside of the Classroom-Indicator 11: Student Internet Access by Locale and Poverty

NCES 2017-098
April 2018

Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside of the Classroom

Indicator 11: Student Internet Access by Locale and Poverty

In 2015, about 11 percent of 5- to 17-year-old students had no access to the Internet or only had dial-up access at home. The percentage of students who had no access to the Internet or only had dial-up access was higher for students living below the poverty threshold (26 percent) than for students living between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty threshold (15 percent) and at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold (4 percent).

Studies have shown that differences in internet access exist across students with different characteristics, including household income levels and geographic locale (File and Ryan 2014; Horrigan and Duggan 2015). This indicator uses data from the American Community Survey to examine the percentages of students ages 5 to 17 with home internet access in 2015 by type of access, poverty status,¹ and geographic locale.

Students can access the Internet from home through different methods, such as a broadband subscription, either fixed or mobile, or even without a subscription.² Fixed broadband (of any sort) excludes mobile broadband, but includes all other non-dial-up internet service, such as DSL, cable modem, fiber-optic cable, and satellite internet service. Mobile broadband includes computer and cell phone plans. In this indicator, mobile broadband includes households with mobile broadband either alone or with dial-up access at home. In addition, "either no access or only dial-up access" includes households where no member accesses the Internet at home as well as households where members access the Internet only with a dial-up service. In 2015, about 78 percent of students ages 5 to 17 had access at home to the Internet through fixed broadband of any sort, 7 percent had access to the Internet through mobile broadband alone or with dial-up access, 4 percent only had access to the Internet without a subscription, and 11 percent of students had no access to the Internet or only dial-up access.

Figure 11.1. Percentage distribution of students 5 to 17 years old, by internet access at home and locale: 2015

¹ Excludes mobile broadband, but includes all other non-dial-up internet service, such as DSL, cable modem, and fiber-optic cable.
² Includes respondents living in a city or town that provides free internet services for its residents.
³ Includes households where no member accesses the Internet at home as well as households where members access the Internet only with a dial-up service.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the entire population residing within the United States. However, this figure includes only students living in households, because respondents living in group quarters (e.g., shelters, healthcare facilities, or correctional facilities) were not asked about internet access. Some students living in households were also excluded from this figure, because their poverty status could not be determined. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015. See Digest of Education Statistics 2016, table 218.70.

In 2015, the percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students with fixed broadband access at home varied based on the locale in which their home was situated. The percentage of students with fixed broadband access at home was highest for students in suburban areas (84 percent), followed by students in cities (74 percent), and was lowest for students in towns (72 percent) and rural areas (71 percent). The percentage was lowest for students living in remote rural areas (65 percent), compared with students living in large suburbs (85 percent), midsize suburbs (82 percent), small suburbs (81 percent), small cities, fringe towns, and fringe rural areas (77 percent each), midsize cities (76 percent), large cities (72 percent), remote towns (71 percent), distant towns (70 percent), and distant rural areas (66 percent). The percentage of students with fixed broadband access at home was also lower for students living in distant rural areas (66 percent) than in all other detailed locales, with the exception of remote rural areas.

In 2015, the percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students with mobile broadband access alone or with dial-up access at home also varied by locale, but contrasted with patterns observed for fixed broadband access at home. The percentage of students with mobile broadband access at home was highest for students in rural areas (10 percent), followed by students in towns (9 percent), then students in cities (8 percent), and was lowest for students in suburban areas (5 percent). The percentage was higher for students living in distant rural areas (12 percent) than in all other detailed locales, with the percentages ranging from 5 percent in large suburbs to 11 percent in remote rural areas. The percentage of students with mobile broadband access at home was also higher for students living in remote rural areas (11 percent) than in all other detailed locales, with the exception of distant rural areas.

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students with either no internet access or only dial-up access at home in 2015 also varied by locale. The percentage of students with either no internet access or only dial-up access at home was higher for students in towns (14 percent) and rural areas and cities (13 percent each) than for students in suburban areas (7 percent). The percentage was higher for students living in remote rural areas (18 percent) than for those living in all other detailed locales, with the percentages ranging from 7 percent in large suburbs to 16 percent in distant rural areas.

Figure 11.2. Percentage of students 5 to 17 years old, by internet access at home and poverty level: 2015

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students with different types of internet access or no internet access at home in 2015 varied by poverty status. For example, the percentage of students who had internet access at home through fixed broadband of any sort was lower for students living below the poverty threshold (55 percent) than for students living between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty threshold (70 percent) and at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold (88 percent). In contrast, the percentage of students who had no access to the Internet or only dial-up access was higher for students living below the poverty threshold (26 percent) than for students living between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty threshold (15 percent) and at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold (4 percent).

Figure 11.3. Percentage distribution of students 5 to 17 years old living in families below the poverty threshold, by internet access at home and locale: 2015

¹ Excludes mobile broadband, but includes all other non-dial-up internet service, such as DSL, cable modem, and fiber-optic cable.
² Includes respondents living in a city or town that provides free internet services for its residents.
³ Includes households where no member accesses the Internet at home as well as households where members access the Internet only with a dial-up service.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the entire population residing within the United States. However, this figure includes only students living in households, because respondents living in group quarters (e.g., shelters, healthcare facilities, or correctional facilities) were not asked about internet access. Some students living in households were also excluded from this figure, because their poverty status could not be determined. The Census Bureau determines poverty status using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. For additional information about poverty status, see https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015. See Digest of Education Statistics 2016, table 218.70.

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students living below the poverty threshold with fixed broadband access at home in 2015 varied by locale. The percentage of students with fixed broadband access at home was highest for students in suburban areas (62 percent), followed by students in cities (53 percent), then students in towns (51 percent), and was lowest for students in rural areas (49 percent). The percentages were lower for students living in distant towns (48 percent), distant rural areas (47 percent), and remote rural areas (44 percent) than for those living in all other detailed locales, with the percentages ranging from 51 percent in remote towns to 62 percent each in small and large suburbs.

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students living below the poverty threshold with either no internet access or only dial-up access at home in 2015 also varied based on locale, but contrasted with patterns for those with fixed broadband access at home. The percentage of students with either no access or only dial-up access at home was highest for students in rural areas (30 percent), followed by students in towns (29 percent), then students in cities (27 percent), and was lowest for students in suburban areas (22 percent). The percentage was higher for students living in remote rural areas (35 percent) than for those living in all other detailed locales, with the percentages ranging from 20 percent in small suburbs to 31 percent each in distant towns and distant rural areas.

Figure 11.4. Percentage distribution of students 5 to 17 years old living in families between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty threshold, by internet access at home and locale: 2015

¹ Excludes mobile broadband, but includes all other non-dial-up internet service, such as DSL, cable modem, and fiber-optic cable.
² Includes respondents living in a city or town that provides free internet services for its residents.
³ Includes households where no member accesses the Internet at home as well as households where members access the Internet only with a dial-up service.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the entire population residing within the United States. However, this figure includes only students living in households, because respondents living in group quarters (e.g., shelters, healthcare facilities, or correctional facilities) were not asked about internet access. Some students living in households were also excluded from this figure, because their poverty status could not be determined. The Census Bureau determines poverty status using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. For additional information about poverty status, see https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015. See Digest of Education Statistics 2016, table 218.70.

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students living between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty threshold with fixed broadband access at home in 2015 varied by locale. The percentage of students with fixed broadband access at home was highest for students in suburban areas (76 percent), followed by students in cities (69 percent), then students in towns (67 percent), and was lowest for students in rural areas (63 percent). The percentage was lower for students living in remote and distant rural areas (60 percent each) than for those living in all other detailed locales, with the percentages ranging from 65 percent in remote towns to 76 percent in large suburbs.

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students living between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty threshold with either no access or only dial-up access at home in 2015 also varied by locale, but contrasted with patterns for those with fixed broadband access at home. The percentage of students with either no access or only dial-up access at home was highest for students in rural areas (19 percent), followed by students in towns and cities (16 percent each), and was lowest for students in suburban areas (12 percent). The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students living between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty threshold with either no internet access or only dial-up access at home was higher for students living in remote rural areas (22 percent) and distant rural areas (21 percent) than for those living in all other detailed locales, with the percentages ranging from 12 percent in large suburbs to 17 percent each in large cities, distant towns, and fringe rural areas.

Figure 11.5. Percentage distribution of students 5 to 17 years old living in families at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold, by internet access at home and locale: 2015

¹ Excludes mobile broadband, but includes all other non-dial-up internet service, such as DSL, cable modem, and fiber-optic cable.
² Includes respondents living in a city or town that provides free internet services for its residents.
³ Includes households where no member accesses the Internet at home as well as households where members access the Internet only with a dial-up service.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the entire population residing within the United States. However, this figure includes only students living in households, because respondents living in group quarters (e.g., shelters, healthcare facilities, or correctional facilities) were not asked about internet access. Some students living in households were also excluded from this figure, because their poverty status could not be determined. The Census Bureau determines poverty status using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. For additional information about poverty status, see https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015. See Digest of Education Statistics 2016, table 218.70.

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students living at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold with fixed broadband access at home in 2015 varied by locale. The percentage of students with fixed broadband access at home was highest for students in suburban areas (91 percent), followed by students in cities (87 percent), then students in towns (85 percent), and was lowest for students in rural areas (80 percent). The percentage was lower for students living in remote rural areas (76 percent) and distant rural areas (75 percent) than in all other detailed locales, with the percentages ranging from 84 percent each in distant and remote towns and fringe rural areas to 92 percent in large suburbs.

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students living at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold with either no internet access or only dial-up access at home in 2015 also varied based by locale, but contrasted with patterns for those with fixed broadband access at home. The percentage of students with either no access or only dial-up access at home was higher for students in rural areas (7 percent) than for students in towns and cities (5 percent each), and was lowest for students in suburbs (3 percent). The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students living at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold with either no internet access or only dial-up access at home was higher for students living in remote and distant rural areas (9 percent each) than for those living in all other detailed locales, with the percentages ranging from 3 percent each in midsize and large suburbs to 6 percent each in large cities and remote and distant towns.

Across cities, suburban areas, towns, and rural areas in 2015, the percentages of 5- to 17-year-old students with either no internet access or only dial-up access were consistently higher for students living below the poverty threshold than for students living at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold. In contrast, across all locales the percentages of students with fixed broadband access at home were consistently lower for students living below the poverty threshold than for students living at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold.

¹ Students are considered to be in poverty if their family income falls below the Census Bureau's poverty threshold, which is a dollar amount that varies depending on a family's size and composition and is updated annually to account for inflation. In 2015, for example, the poverty threshold for a family of four with two children was $24,036. Respondents were interviewed throughout the year and reported on the income they received during the previous 12 months.
² Includes respondents living in a city or town that provides free internet services for its residents.

Reference Tables

Table 11.1. (Digest table 218.70) Number and percentage distribution of 5- to 17-year-old students, by home internet access, poverty status, and locale: 2015