This blog continues a robust discussion about National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data collected in the recent past that can illuminate the issue of students’ access to the internet and digital devices at home. A few years ago—well before the coronavirus pandemic and stay-at-home orders shone a bright light on the inequities across the nation—NCES began dedicating resources to improve its data collection and policymaking around education technology and equity at the district, state, and national levels.
The 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading questionnaire asked 4th- and 8th-grade students if they had internet access at home and if there was a computer or tablet at home that they could use (referred to in this blog as having “digital access”). These data provide a pre–coronavirus pandemic snapshot of students’ digital access. Across all public schools, 81 percent of 4th-grade students and 88 percent of 8th-grade students said that they had digital access (figures 1 and 2). Thus, 19 percent of 4th-grade students and 12 percent of 8th-grade students in public schools may not have either access to the internet or the devices required to carry out distance learning.
Figure 1. Percentage of 4th-grade public school students in the NAEP reading assessment that reported having internet access and a computer or tablet at home, by state: 2019
* Significantly different from the National Public estimate at the .05 level of statistical significance.
NOTE: Statistical comparison tests are based on unrounded numbers. Not all apparent differences between estimates are statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2019 Reading Assessment.
Figure 2. Percentage of 8th-grade public school students in the NAEP reading assessment that reported having internet access and a computer or tablet at home, by state: 2019
* Significantly different from the National Public estimate at the .05 level of statistical significance.
NOTE: Statistical comparison tests are based on unrounded numbers. Not all apparent differences between estimates are statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2019 Reading Assessment.
There were also differences across states in 2019. For 4th-grade students, the percentages who had digital access varied by state, ranging from 70 percent in New Mexico to 88 percent in New Jersey (table 1). Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming had lower percentages of students who had digital access than the national average (figure 1 and table 1). For 8th-grade students, the percentages who had access ranged from 81 percent in Oklahoma to 93 percent in Connecticut (table 1). Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia had lower percentages of students who had access than the national average (figure 2 and table 1).
Table 1. Percentage of public school students in the NAEP reading assessment that reported having internet access and a computer or tablet at home, by grade and state: 2019
|
Grade 4
|
|
Grade 8
|
|
State
|
Percent
|
s.e
|
|
Percent
|
s.e
|
|
National public
|
81
|
(0.2)
|
|
88
|
(0.2)
|
|
Alabama
|
79
|
(1.2)
|
|
86
|
(0.8)
|
↓
|
Alaska
|
‡
|
†
|
|
‡
|
†
|
|
Arizona
|
78
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
84
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
Arkansas
|
73
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
83
|
(1.1)
|
↓
|
California
|
81
|
(0.9)
|
|
88
|
(0.9)
|
|
Colorado
|
‡
|
†
|
|
‡
|
†
|
|
Connecticut
|
85
|
(0.8)
|
↑
|
93
|
(0.6)
|
↑
|
Delaware
|
81
|
(0.9)
|
|
90
|
(0.6)
|
|
District of Columbia
|
83
|
(0.8)
|
↑
|
90
|
(0.6)
|
↑
|
DoDEA
|
88
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
96
|
(0.4)
|
↑
|
Florida
|
85
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
89
|
(0.7)
|
|
Georgia
|
83
|
(0.9)
|
↑
|
90
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
Hawaii
|
79
|
(1)
|
|
86
|
(0.8)
|
↓
|
Idaho
|
77
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
88
|
(0.8)
|
|
Illinois
|
83
|
(0.8)
|
↑
|
90
|
(0.6)
|
↑
|
Indiana
|
80
|
(0.9)
|
|
90
|
(1.1)
|
|
Iowa
|
81
|
(0.9)
|
|
90
|
(0.7)
|
|
Kansas
|
78
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
88
|
(0.7)
|
|
Kentucky
|
81
|
(0.8)
|
|
87
|
(0.7)
|
↓
|
Louisiana
|
79
|
(1)
|
|
85
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
Maine
|
82
|
(0.9)
|
|
89
|
(0.7)
|
|
Maryland
|
82
|
(0.8)
|
|
91
|
(0.6)
|
↑
|
Massachusetts
|
87
|
(0.8)
|
↑
|
93
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
Michigan
|
80
|
(1)
|
|
90
|
(0.8)
|
|
Minnesota
|
83
|
(1)
|
↑
|
92
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
Mississippi
|
77
|
(1.2)
|
↓
|
84
|
(0.7)
|
↓
|
Missouri
|
78
|
(0.8)
|
↓
|
89
|
(0.8)
|
|
Montana
|
‡
|
†
|
|
‡
|
†
|
|
Nebraska
|
81
|
(0.9)
|
|
90
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
Nevada
|
79
|
(1)
|
|
85
|
(0.7)
|
↓
|
New Hampshire
|
‡
|
†
|
|
‡
|
†
|
|
New Jersey
|
88
|
(0.8)
|
↑
|
93
|
(0.6)
|
↑
|
New Mexico
|
70
|
(1.2)
|
↓
|
82
|
(0.8)
|
↓
|
New York
|
84
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
91
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
North Carolina
|
81
|
(0.8)
|
|
89
|
(0.8)
|
|
North Dakota
|
81
|
(1)
|
|
90
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
Ohio
|
82
|
(0.9)
|
|
91
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
Oklahoma
|
73
|
(1.1)
|
↓
|
81
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
Oregon
|
77
|
(1)
|
↓
|
87
|
(0.8)
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
85
|
(0.8)
|
↑
|
91
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
Rhode Island
|
84
|
(0.8)
|
↑
|
90
|
(0.6)
|
↑
|
South Carolina
|
81
|
(1)
|
|
90
|
(0.9)
|
|
South Dakota
|
‡
|
†
|
|
‡
|
†
|
|
Tennessee
|
77
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
86
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
Texas
|
75
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
82
|
(1)
|
↓
|
Utah
|
‡
|
†
|
|
‡
|
†
|
|
Vermont
|
81
|
(0.9)
|
|
91
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
Virginia
|
82
|
(0.8)
|
|
91
|
(0.8)
|
↑
|
Washington
|
80
|
(1)
|
|
89
|
(0.8)
|
|
West Virginia
|
81
|
(1)
|
|
86
|
(0.7)
|
↓
|
Wisconsin
|
83
|
(0.9)
|
|
91
|
(0.7)
|
↑
|
Wyoming
|
78
|
(0.9)
|
↓
|
88
|
(0.7)
|
|
↑ Significantly higher than the estimate for National Public at the .05 level of statistical significance.
↓ Significantly higher than the estimate for National Public at the .05 level of statistical significance.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
† Not applicable.
NOTE: Statistical comparison tests are based on unrounded numbers. Not all apparent differences between estimates are statistically significant. “National public” refers to the results for all students in public schools.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2019 Reading Assessment.
Looking at the results of NAEP’s 2019 Trial Urban Districts Assessment (TUDA), Miami-Dade, Florida, had the highest percentages of 4th- and 8th-grade students who had digital access (88 percent and 93 percent, respectively) (table 2). Fresno, California, had the lowest percentage of 4th-grade students (67 percent) who had access and Dallas, Texas, had the lowest percentage of 8th-grade students (73 percent) who had access.
Table 2. Percentage of public school students in the NAEP reading assessment that reported having internet access and a computer or tablet at home, by grade and Trial Urban District Assessments (TUDA): 2019
|
Grade 4
|
|
Grade 8
|
|
Large city
|
Percentage
|
|
Percentage
|
|
All large cities
|
78
|
|
85
|
|
Albuquerque
|
75
|
|
85
|
|
Atlanta
|
82
|
↑
|
86
|
|
Austin
|
78
|
|
83
|
|
Baltimore City
|
73
|
↓
|
84
|
|
Boston
|
81
|
↑
|
89
|
↑
|
Charlotte
|
83
|
↑
|
91
|
↑
|
Chicago
|
80
|
|
88
|
|
Clark County (NV)
|
78
|
|
84
|
|
Cleveland
|
74
|
↓
|
80
|
↓
|
Dallas
|
71
|
↓
|
73
|
↓
|
Denver
|
‡
|
|
‡
|
|
Detroit
|
70
|
↓
|
79
|
↓
|
District of Columbia (DCPS)
|
83
|
↑
|
90
|
↑
|
Duval County (FL)
|
84
|
↑
|
89
|
↑
|
Fort Worth (TX)
|
72
|
↓
|
88
|
↑
|
Fresno
|
67
|
↓
|
77
|
↓
|
Guilford County (NC)
|
78
|
|
85
|
|
Hillsborough County (FL)
|
81
|
|
87
|
|
Houston
|
71
|
↓
|
75
|
↓
|
Jefferson County (KY)
|
82
|
↑
|
88
|
↑
|
Los Angeles
|
76
|
|
85
|
|
Miami-Dade
|
88
|
↑
|
93
|
↑
|
Milwaukee
|
75
|
|
85
|
|
New York City
|
81
|
|
89
|
↑
|
Philadelphia
|
78
|
|
86
|
|
San Diego
|
81
|
|
90
|
↑
|
Shelby County (TN)
|
78
|
|
86
|
|
Significantly higher than the estimate for Large City at the .05 level of statistical significance.
↓ Significantly lower than the estimate for Large City at the .05 level of statistical significance.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.
NOTE: Statistical comparison tests are based on unrounded numbers. Not all apparent differences between estimates are statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2019 Reading Assessment.
In 2019, higher percentages of 8th-grade students than of 4th-grade students had digital access. This pattern was consistent across all states and TUDA jurisdictions. On average, in both 4th and 8th grades, higher percentages of students in suburban areas than of students in cities, towns, and rural areas had access (table 3).
Table 3. Percentage of public school students in the NAEP reading assessment that reported having internet access and a computer or tablet at home, by grade and locale: 2019
|
Grade 4
|
|
Grade 8
|
|
Locale
|
Percentage
|
s.e
|
|
Percentage
|
s.e
|
|
National public
|
81
|
(0.2)
|
|
88
|
(0.2)
|
|
City
|
79
|
(0.4)
|
↓
|
86
|
(0.4)
|
↓
|
Suburban
|
84
|
(0.3)
|
|
92
|
(0.3)
|
|
Town
|
77
|
(0.8)
|
↓
|
86
|
(0.6)
|
↓
|
Rural
|
78
|
(0.4)
|
↓
|
87
|
(0.4)
|
↓
|
↓ Significantly lower than the estimate for Suburban at the .05 level of statistical significance.
NOTE: Statistical comparison tests are based on unrounded numbers. Not all apparent differences between estimates are statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2019 Reading Assessment.
While the NAEP data reveal state-level patterns in students’ digital access before the pandemic, the Household Pulse Survey (HPS) provides insight into the digital access of students across the country during the pandemic. The HPS is conducted by the Census Bureau and seven other federal statistical agency partners, including NCES. Since April 23, 2020, the HPS has provided weekly or biweekly estimates of the availability of computers and internet access to children for educational purposes.
In April 2020, 88 percent of adults who had children under 18 in the home enrolled in school reported that computers were always or usually available for educational purposes. By the end of March 2021, that percentage increased to 94 percent (table 4).
A similar pattern emerged in the HPS data for internet access. In April 2020, 91 percent of adults who had children under 18 in the home enrolled in school reported that the internet was always or usually available for educational purposes. In March 2021, that percentage had increased to 94 percent (table 4).
Table 4. Percentage of adults who had children under 18 in the home enrolled in school who reported that computers and internet access were always or usually available for educational purposes: 2020–21, selected time periods
|
Computers available
|
Access to internet
|
|
Percentage
|
s.e.
|
|
Percentage
|
s.e.
|
|
April 23 to May 5, 2020
|
88
|
(0.5)
|
|
91
|
(0.4)
|
|
March 17 to March 29, 2021
|
94
|
(0.4)
|
↑
|
94
|
(0.4)
|
↑
|
↑ Significantly higher than the estimate for April 23 to May 5, 2020, at the .05 level of statistical significance.
NOTE: Statistical comparison tests are based on unrounded numbers. Not all apparent differences between estimates are statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey, selected periods, April 2021 through March 2021.
While these data provide a recent look into the technology landscape for students both before and during the pandemic, there is still a need to collect more and better data to understand digital inequities. For example, future NCES surveys could ask schools, students, and teachers about their technology use and access at home, what resources for learning and instruction they have at home, and the environment in which many students and teachers now find themselves learning and teaching.
Resources for more information:
- NCES Ed Tech Equity Initiative
- NCES data on students’ access to technology during the coronavirus pandemic:
- NCES data about students’ technology use in school:
- Spotlight indicator in the 2021 Condition of Education, which discusses how student’s access to technology and distance learning has changed during the pandemic:
- Household Pulse Survey data tool and data tables
By Cadelle Hemphill, AIR; Yan Wang, AIR: Diana Forster, AIR; Chad Scott, AIR; and Grady Wilburn, NCES