Contents
- Global school internet access statistics by education level
- School internet access statistics across world regions
- What PISA 2018 says about school wireless access
- National connectivity examples: Spain and Estonia
- School Wi-Fi adoption and policy priorities
- How to interpret school internet access benchmarks
- Sources
Global school internet access statistics by education level
The global figures show a clear difference by education level. In 2020, 40.3% of schools worldwide had internet access for pedagogical purposes at the primary level. The share was 50.9% at lower secondary and 65.5% at upper secondary. These are school-level percentages, and the measure is internet access intended for pedagogical purposes—not simply whether students or staff could get online for any reason.
The same UNESCO table offers earlier comparisons for two levels. Worldwide, the share of lower secondary schools with pedagogical internet access was 49.1% in 2017, compared with 50.9% in 2020. At upper secondary, it was 60.7% in 2017 and 65.5% in 2020. The table also reports 59.7% for upper secondary in 2015. These figures indicate a modest increase in the reported global shares between the listed years, but the table does not provide a complete time series for every level in the observations presented here.
| Education level | 2015 | 2017 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | — | — | 40.3% |
| Lower secondary | — | 49.1% | 50.9% |
| Upper secondary | 59.7% | 60.7% | 65.5% |
Share of schools with internet access for pedagogical purposes. Dashes indicate values not cited here. Source: UN Statistics Division, Statistical Annex I and II, table 4.a.1(b).
The 2024 Global Education Monitoring report gives a broad benchmark: in upper secondary education, 8 in 10 schools are connected to the internet. The page does not state the underlying observation year for this rounded statement. It should therefore be read as a separate reported benchmark, not as a direct update to the UNESCO table’s 2020 value of 65.5%. The definitions and timing are not shown as identical in the cited statements.
School internet access statistics across world regions
Regional results underline how a global average can conceal sharply different levels of access. In 2020, 95.5% of schools in Eastern Asia had pedagogical internet access at both the primary and lower secondary levels; the upper secondary figure was 94.6%. Eastern and South-Eastern Asia had 78.5% at primary, 74.0% at lower secondary, and 86.5% at upper secondary.
By contrast, the reported shares for Southern Asia were 18.8% at primary, 28.8% at lower secondary, and 56.9% at upper secondary. Central and Southern Asia’s corresponding figures were 20.0%, 30.5%, and 57.7%. Northern Africa and Western Asia showed a different pattern: 69.1% at primary, 90.0% at lower secondary, and 83.1% at upper secondary.
| Region | Primary | Lower secondary | Upper secondary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern Asia | 95.5% | 95.5% | 94.6% |
| Eastern and South-Eastern Asia | 78.5% | 74.0% | 86.5% |
| Northern Africa and Western Asia | 69.1% | 90.0% | 83.1% |
| Central and Southern Asia | 20.0% | 30.5% | 57.7% |
| Southern Asia | 18.8% | 28.8% | 56.9% |
Share of schools with internet access for pedagogical purposes in 2020. Regional groupings are reproduced as reported in the table and are not interchangeable. Source: UN Statistics Division, Statistical Annex I and II, table 4.a.1(b).
The differences by level are not uniform. In Southern Asia, the listed upper secondary share is substantially higher than the primary share. In Eastern Asia, the three level-specific values are all close to 95%. These comparisons describe the reported regional school shares; they do not establish why regions differ, nor do they measure connection quality, affordability, reliability, or how often the connection is used.
What PISA 2018 says about school wireless access
Internet availability and Wi-Fi availability are related but distinct measures. In PISA 2018, students in lower and upper secondary education were asked whether an internet connection via wireless network was available at their school. The OECD’s reported results show 86.2% of Danish students and 84.1% of Swedish students with wireless internet available at school. The corresponding figures were 50.6% in France, 49.7% in Chile, and 36.8% in Japan.
These percentages refer to students reporting that wireless internet was available at school, rather than the share of schools with any internet connection. They also come from PISA 2018 and should not be treated as current national rates. The contrast between these selected countries illustrates the range in the survey results, but the supplied figures are examples rather than a complete country ranking.
A separate PISA-related measure points to the difference between equipment and connection quality. Among 15-year-old students covered by PISA 2018, 45.2% were in schools reporting a quality internet connection. The OECD passage contrasts this with virtually all covered students being in schools equipped with internet-capable computers. Having connected-capable devices, in other words, does not itself establish that a school has a quality internet connection.
Source for the PISA findings: OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023, “Hardware: The provision of connectivity and digital devices”.
National connectivity examples: Spain and Estonia
National programs and infrastructure examples add detail that global school-access percentages cannot show. As of January 2023, Spain’s Escuelas Conectadas initiative reached all public schools in 12 of Spain’s 17 autonomous regions and both autonomous cities, Ceuta and Melilla. This describes the initiative’s reach across those jurisdictions, not a percentage of all Spanish schools with internet access.
In Estonia, the OECD reports that all schools have high-speed connectivity, and 75% could rely on fibre connections. It also states that all connections can provide speeds of at least one gigabit per second. The passage does not specify the measurement date for these figures, so they are best treated as a national example reported in the 2023 publication rather than a dated survey result.
Source: OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023, “Hardware: The provision of connectivity and digital devices”.
School Wi-Fi adoption and policy priorities
Japan’s school Wi-Fi adoption changed substantially between two reported years. MEXT surveys cited by the OECD put adoption at 48.9% of schools in 2020 and 94.8% in 2022. This is a school-level adoption measure, distinct from the PISA 2018 student responses about whether wireless internet was available at school. The two series use different populations and dates and should not be compared as if they were a single continuous measure.
Policy priorities reported by education systems also point to continued attention to connectivity. In an OECD survey of 29 participating education systems, 22 identified increasing school internet access and providing fast connections as a priority for the next five years, corresponding to 2024–2028 in the figures. This is a count of survey respondents expressing a policy priority, not a count of countries that had achieved a particular connection level.
The same survey found more limited interest in prioritizing free mobile data for educational platforms: five of the 29 respondents showed overall interest in that policy for 2024–2028. These findings distinguish two different approaches—improving school connections and supporting mobile access to educational platforms—and report the views of participating systems rather than all jurisdictions worldwide.
Source: OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023, “Hardware: The provision of connectivity and digital devices”.
How to interpret school internet access benchmarks
School connectivity figures answer different questions depending on their denominator and definition. The global UNESCO table reports the percentage of schools with internet access for pedagogical purposes. PISA’s wireless measure reports the percentage of surveyed students who said Wi-Fi was available at their school. The PISA quality measure concerns students in schools reporting a quality connection. National examples may describe program reach, fibre availability, or connection speeds. Treating all of these as one measure of “school internet access” would blur important distinctions.
Reporting coverage is another separate issue. The 2024 GEM monitoring page says 33% of countries had submitted benchmark values for the school internet connectivity indicator. This is the share of countries submitting benchmark values, not the percentage of schools connected. It says something about the availability of reported benchmark data, not about connectivity prevalence itself.
Taken together, the observations show why school access should be read across several dimensions: education level, region, whether the measure concerns schools or students, the purpose of access, wireless availability, and connection quality. The reported values provide useful benchmarks for those dimensions, while their dates and scopes determine which comparisons are appropriate.
Sources: UN Statistics Division, Statistical Annex I and II; OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023; UNESCO, Monitoring SDG 4: 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report.