Programme for International Student Assessment (2000 to 2012)

For the latest PISA test, in 2018, see Programme for International Student Assessment.

The Programme for International Student Assessment has had several runs before the most recent one in 2012. The first PISA assessment was carried out in 2000. The results of each period of assessment take about one year and a half to be analysed. First results were published in November 2001. The release of raw data and the publication of technical report and data handbook only took place in spring 2002. The triennial repeats follow a similar schedule; the process of seeing through a single PISA cycle, start-to-finish, always takes over four years. 470,000 15-year-old students representing 65 nations and territories participated in PISA 2009. An additional 50,000 students representing nine nations were tested in 2010.

Every period of assessment focuses on one of the three competence fields of reading, math, science; but the two others are tested as well. After nine years, a full cycle is completed: after 2000, reading was again the main domain in 2009.

Period	Focus	OECD countries	Partner countries	Participating students	Notes
2000	Reading	28	4 + 11	265,000	The Netherlands disqualified from data analysis. 11 additional non-OECD countries took the test in 2002.
2003	Mathematics	30	11	275,000	UK disqualified from data analysis. Also included test in problem solving.
2006	Science	30	27	400,000	Reading scores for US excluded from analysis due to misprint in testing materials.
2009	Reading	34	41 + 10	470,000	10 additional non-OECD countries took the test in 2010.
2012	Mathematics	34	31	510,000

Results

PISA 2012

PISA 2012

The results for the 2012 "Maths" section on a world map. The results for the 2012 "Science" section on a world map. The results for the 2012 "Reading" section on a world map. OECD members as of the time of the study are in boldface. Mathematics Science Reading 1 Shanghai, China 613 2 Singapore 573 3 Hong Kong, China 561 4 Taiwan 560 5 South Korea 554 6 Macau, China 538 7 Japan 536 8 Liechtenstein 535 9 Switzerland 531 10 Netherlands 523 11 Estonia 521 12 Finland 519 13= Canada 518 13= Poland 518 15 Belgium 515 16 Germany 514 17 Vietnam 511 18 Austria 506 19 Australia 504 20= Ireland 501 20= Slovenia 501 22= Denmark 500 22= New Zealand 500 24 Czech Republic 499 25 France 495 26 United Kingdom 494 27 Iceland 493 28 Latvia 491 29 Luxembourg 490 30 Norway 489 31 Portugal 487 32 Italy 485 33 Spain 484 34= Russia 482 34= Slovakia 482 36 United States 481 37 Lithuania 479 38 Sweden 478 39 Hungary 477 40 Croatia 471 41 Israel 466 42 Greece 453 43 Serbia 449 44 Turkey 448 45 Romania 445 46 Cyprus 440 47 Bulgaria 439 48 United Arab Emirates 434 49 Kazakhstan 432 50 Thailand 427 51 Chile 423 52 Malaysia 421 53 Mexico 413 54 Montenegro 410 55 Uruguay 409 56 Costa Rica 407 57 Albania 394 58 Brazil 391 59= Argentina 388 59= Tunisia 388 61 Jordan 386 62= Colombia 376 62= Qatar 376 64 Indonesia 375 65 Peru 368 1 Shanghai, China 580 2 Hong Kong, China 555 3 Singapore 551 4 Japan 547 5 Finland 545 6 Estonia 541 7 South Korea 538 8 Vietnam 528 9 Poland 526 10= Liechtenstein 525 10= Canada 525 12 Germany 524 13 Taiwan 523 14= Netherlands 522 14= Ireland 522 16= Macau, China 521 16= Australia 521 18 New Zealand 516 19 Switzerland 515 20= Slovenia 514 20= United Kingdom 514 22 Czech Republic 508 23 Austria 506 24 Belgium 505 25 Latvia 502 26 France 499 27 Denmark 498 28 United States 497 29= Spain 496 29= Lithuania 496 31 Norway 495 32= Italy 494 32= Hungary 494 34= Luxembourg 491 34= Croatia 491 36 Portugal 489 37 Russia 486 38 Sweden 485 39 Iceland 478 40 Slovakia 471 41 Israel 470 42 Greece 467 43 Turkey 463 44 United Arab Emirates 448 45 Bulgaria 446 46= Serbia 445 46= Chile 445 48 Thailand 444 49 Romania 439 50 Cyprus 438 51 Costa Rica 429 52 Kazakhstan 425 53 Malaysia 420 54 Uruguay 416 55 Mexico 415 56 Montenegro 410 57 Jordan 409 58 Argentina 406 59 Brazil 405 60 Colombia 399 61 Tunisia 398 62 Albania 397 63 Qatar 384 64 Indonesia 382 65 Peru 373 1 Shanghai, China 570 2 Hong Kong, China 545 3 Singapore 542 4 Japan 538 5 South Korea 536 6 Finland 524 7= Taiwan 523 7= Canada 523 7= Ireland 523 10 Poland 518 11= Liechtenstein 516 11= Estonia 516 13= Australia 512 13= New Zealand 512 15 Netherlands 511 16= Macau, China 509 16= Switzerland 509 16= Belgium 509 19= Germany 508 19= Vietnam 508 21 France 505 22 Norway 504 23 United Kingdom 499 24 United States 498 25 Denmark 496 26 Czech Republic 493 27= Austria 490 27= Italy 490 29 Latvia 489 30= Luxembourg 488 30= Portugal 488 30= Spain 488 30= Hungary 488 34 Israel 486 35 Croatia 485 36= Iceland 483 36= Sweden 483 38 Slovenia 481 39= Lithuania 477 39= Greece 477 41= Russia 475 41= Turkey 475 43 Slovakia 463 44 Cyprus 449 45 Serbia 446 46 United Arab Emirates 442 47= Thailand 441 47= Chile 441 47= Costa Rica 441 50 Romania 438 51 Bulgaria 436 52 Mexico 424 53 Montenegro 422 54 Uruguay 411 55 Brazil 410 56 Tunisia 404 57 Colombia 403 58 Jordan 399 59 Malaysia 398 60= Argentina 396 60= Indonesia 396 62 Albania 394 63 Kazakhstan 393 64 Qatar 388 65 Peru 384 PISA 2012 was presented on 3 December 2013, with results for around 510,000 participating students in all 34 OECD member countries and 31 partner countries. This testing cycle had a particular focus on mathematics, where the mean score was 494. A sample of 1,688 students from Puerto Rico took the assessment, scoring 379 in math, 404 in reading and 401 in science. A subgroup of 44 countries and economies with about 85 000 students also took part in an optional computer-based assessment of problem solving. Shanghai had the highest score in all three subjects. It was followed by Singapore, Hong Kong, Chinese Taipei and Korea in mathematics; Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and Korea in reading and Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and Finland in science. They were a sample of about 28 million in the same age group in 65 countries and economies, including the OECD countries, several Chinese cities, Vietnam, Indonesia and several countries in South America. The test lasted two hours, was paper-based and included both open-ended and multiple-choice questions. The students and school staff also answered a questionnaire to provide background information about the students and the schools. PISA 2012 was presented on 3 December 2013, with results for around 510,000 participating students in all 34 OECD member countries and 31 partner countries. This testing cycle had a particular focus on mathematics, where the mean score was 494. The mean score in reading was 496 and in science 501. The results show distinct groups of high-performers in mathematics: the East Asian countries, with Shanghai, scoring the best result of 613, followed closely by Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei and South Korea. Among the Europeans, Liechtenstein and Switzerland performed best, with Netherlands, Estonia, Finland, Poland, Belgium, Germany, Austria all posting mathematics scores "not significantly statistically different from" one another. The United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand were similarly clustered around the OECD average of 494, with the USA trailing this group at 481. Qatar, Kazakhstan and Malaysia were the countries which showed the greatest improvement in mathematics. The USA and the United Kingdom showed no significant change. Sweden had the greatest fall in mathematics performance over the last ten years, with a similar falling trend also in the two other subjects, and leading politicians in Sweden expressed great worry over the results. On average boys scored better than girls in mathematics, girls scored better than boys in reading and the two sexes had quite similar scores in science. Indonesia, Albania, Peru, Thailand and Colombia were the countries where most students reported being happy at school, while students in Korea, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Estonia and Finland reported least happiness.

PISA 2009

PISA 2009

The PISA 2009 cycle included results in mathematics, science and reading for all 36 OECD member countries and 37 partner countries. Of the partner countries, only selected areas of three countries—India, Venezuela and China—were assessed. PISA 2009+, released in December 2011, included data from 10 additional partner countries which had testing delayed from 2009 to 2010 because of scheduling constraints. OECD members as of the time of the study are in boldface. Participants in PISA 2009+, which were tested in 2010 after the main group of 65, are italicized. Mathematics Science Reading 1 Shanghai, China 600 2 Singapore 562 3 Hong Kong, China 555 4 South Korea 546 5 Taiwan 543 6 Finland 541 7 Liechtenstein 536 8 Switzerland 534 9 Japan 529 10 Canada 527 11 Netherlands 526 12 Macau, China 525 13 New Zealand 519 14 Belgium 515 15 Australia 514 16 Germany 513 17 Estonia 512 18 Iceland 507 19 Denmark 503 20 Slovenia 501 21 Norway 498 22 France 497 23 Slovakia 497 24 Austria 496 25 Poland 495 26 Sweden 494 27 Czech Republic 493 28 United Kingdom 492 29 Hungary 490 30 Luxembourg 489 31 United States 487 32 Portugal 487 33 Ireland 487 34 Spain 483 35 Italy 483 36 Latvia 482 37 Lithuania 477 38 Russia 468 39 Greece 466 40 Malta 463 41 Croatia 460 42 Israel 447 43 Turkey 445 44 Serbia 442 45 Azerbaijan 431 46 Bulgaria 428 47 Uruguay 427 48 Romania 427 49 United Arab Emirates 421 50 Chile 421 51 Mauritius 420 52 Thailand 419 53 Mexico 419 54 Trinidad and Tobago 414 55 Costa Rica 409 56 Kazakhstan 405 57 Malaysia 404 58 Montenegro 403 59 Moldova 397 60 Miranda, Venezuela 397 61 Argentina 388 62 Jordan 387 63 Brazil 386 64 Colombia 381 65 Georgia 379 66 Albania 377 67 Tunisia 371 68 Indonesia 371 69 Qatar 368 70 Peru 365 71 Panama 360 72 Tamil Nadu, India 351 73 Himachal Pradesh, India 338 74 Kyrgyzstan 331 1 Shanghai, China 575 2 Finland 554 3 Hong Kong, China 549 4 Singapore 542 5 Japan 539 6 South Korea 538 7 New Zealand 532 8 Canada 529 9 Estonia 528 10 Australia 527 11 Netherlands 522 12 Liechtenstein 520 13 Germany 520 14 Taiwan 520 15 Switzerland 517 16 United Kingdom 514 17 Slovenia 512 18 Macau, China 511 19 Poland 508 20 Ireland 508 21 Belgium 507 22 Hungary 503 23 United States 502 24 Norway 500 25 Czech Republic 500 26 Denmark 499 27 France 498 28 Iceland 496 29 Sweden 495 30 Latvia 494 31 Austria 494 32 Portugal 493 33 Lithuania 491 34 Slovakia 490 35 Italy 489 36 Spain 488 37 Croatia 486 38 Luxembourg 484 39 Russia 478 40 Greece 470 41 Malta 461 42 Israel 455 43 Turkey 454 44 Chile 447 45 Serbia 443 46 Bulgaria 439 47 United Arab Emirates 438 48 Costa Rica 430 49 Romania 428 50 Uruguay 427 51 Thailand 425 52 Miranda, Venezuela 422 53 Malaysia 422 54 Mauritius 417 55 Mexico 416 56 Jordan 415 57 Moldova 413 58 Trinidad and Tobago 410 59 Brazil 405 60 Colombia 402 61 Tunisia 401 62 Montenegro 401 63 Argentina 401 64 Kazakhstan 400 65 Albania 391 66 Indonesia 383 67 Qatar 379 68 Panama 376 69 Georgia 373 70 Azerbaijan 373 71 Peru 369 72 Tamil Nadu, India 348 73 Kyrgyzstan 330 74 Himachal Pradesh, India 325 1 Shanghai, China 556 2 South Korea 539 3 Finland 536 4 Hong Kong, China 533 5 Singapore 526 6 Canada 524 7 New Zealand 521 8 Japan 520 9 Australia 515 10 Netherlands 508 11 Belgium 506 12 Norway 503 13 Estonia 501 14 Switzerland 501 15 Poland 500 16 Iceland 500 17 United States 500 18 Liechtenstein 499 19 Sweden 497 20 Germany 497 21 Ireland 496 22 France 496 23 Taiwan 495 24 Denmark 495 25 United Kingdom 494 26 Hungary 494 27 Portugal 489 28 Macau, China 487 29 Italy 486 30 Latvia 484 31 Greece 483 32 Slovenia 483 33 Spain 481 34 Czech Republic 478 35 Slovakia 477 36 Croatia 476 37 Israel 474 38 Luxembourg 472 39 Austria 470 40 Lithuania 468 41 Turkey 464 42 Russia 459 43 Chile 449 44 Costa Rica 443 45 Malta 442 46 Serbia 442 47 United Arab Emirates 431 48 Bulgaria 429 49 Uruguay 426 50 Mexico 425 51 Romania 424 52 Miranda, Venezuela 422 53 Thailand 421 54 Trinidad and Tobago 416 55 Malaysia 414 56 Colombia 413 57 Brazil 412 58 Montenegro 408 59 Mauritius 407 60 Jordan 405 61 Tunisia 404 62 Indonesia 402 63 Argentina 398 64 Kazakhstan 390 65 Moldova 388 66 Albania 385 67 Georgia 374 68 Qatar 372 69 Panama 371 70 Peru 370 71 Azerbaijan 362 72 Tamil Nadu, India 337 73 Himachal Pradesh, India 317 74 Kyrgyzstan 314

PISA 2006

PISA 2006

OECD members as of the time of the study are in boldface. Reading scores for the United States were disqualified. Mathematics Science Reading 1 Taiwan 549 2 Finland 548 3 South Korea 547 4 Hong Kong, China 547 5 Netherlands 531 6 Switzerland 530 7 Canada 527 8 Macau, China 525 9 Liechtenstein 525 10 Japan 523 11 New Zealand 522 12 Belgium 520 13 Australia 520 14 Estonia 515 15 Denmark 513 16 Czech Republic 510 17 Iceland 506 18 Austria 505 19 Slovenia 504 20 Germany 504 21 Sweden 502 22 Ireland 501 23 France 496 24 United Kingdom 495 25 Poland 495 26 Slovakia 492 27 Hungary 491 28 Norway 490 29 Luxembourg 490 30 Lithuania 486 31 Latvia 486 32 Spain 480 33 Russia 476 34 Azerbaijan 476 35 United States 474 36 Croatia 467 37 Portugal 466 38 Italy 462 39 Greece 459 40 Israel 442 41 Serbia 435 42 Uruguay 427 43 Turkey 424 44 Thailand 417 45 Romania 415 46 Bulgaria 413 47 Chile 411 48 Mexico 406 49 Montenegro 399 50 Indonesia 391 51 Jordan 384 52 Argentina 381 53 Colombia 370 54 Brazil 370 55 Tunisia 365 56 Qatar 318 57 Kyrgyzstan 311 1 Finland 563 2 Hong Kong, China 542 3 Canada 534 4 Taiwan 532 5 Japan 531 6 Estonia 531 7 New Zealand 530 8 Australia 527 9 Netherlands 525 10 Liechtenstein 522 11 South Korea 522 12 Slovenia 519 13 Germany 516 14 United Kingdom 515 15 Czech Republic 513 16 Switzerland 512 17 Austria 511 18 Macau, China 511 19 Belgium 510 20 Ireland 508 21 Hungary 504 22 Sweden 503 23 Poland 498 24 Denmark 496 25 France 495 26 Croatia 493 27 Iceland 491 28 Latvia 490 29 United States 489 30 Slovakia 488 31 Spain 488 32 Lithuania 488 33 Norway 487 34 Luxembourg 486 35 Russia 479 36 Italy 475 37 Portugal 474 38 Greece 473 39 Israel 454 40 Chile 438 41 Serbia 436 42 Bulgaria 434 43 Uruguay 428 44 Turkey 424 45 Jordan 422 46 Thailand 421 47 Romania 418 48 Montenegro 412 49 Mexico 410 50 Indonesia 393 51 Argentina 391 52 Brazil 390 53 Colombia 388 54 Tunisia 386 55 Azerbaijan 382 56 Qatar 349 57 Kyrgyzstan 322 1 South Korea 556 2 Finland 547 3 Hong Kong, China 536 4 Canada 527 5 New Zealand 521 6 Ireland 517 7 Australia 513 8 Liechtenstein 510 9 Poland 508 10 Sweden 507 11 Netherlands 507 12 Belgium 501 13 Estonia 501 14 Switzerland 499 15 Japan 498 16 Taiwan 496 17 United Kingdom 495 18 Germany 495 19 Denmark 494 20 Slovenia 494 21 Macau, China 492 22 Austria 490 23 France 488 24 Iceland 484 25 Norway 484 26 Czech Republic 483 27 Hungary 482 28 Latvia 479 29 Luxembourg 479 30 Croatia 477 31 Portugal 472 32 Lithuania 470 33 Italy 469 34 Slovakia 466 35 Spain 461 36 Greece 460 37 Turkey 447 38 Chile 442 39 Russia 440 40 Israel 439 41 Thailand 417 42 Uruguay 413 43 Mexico 410 44 Bulgaria 402 45 Serbia 401 46 Jordan 401 47 Romania 396 48 Indonesia 393 49 Brazil 393 50 Montenegro 392 51 Colombia 385 52 Tunisia 380 53 Argentina 374 54 Azerbaijan 353 55 Qatar 312 56 Kyrgyzstan 285

PISA 2003

The results for PISA 2003 were released on 14 December 2004. This PISA cycle tested 275,000 15 year-olds on mathematics, science, reading and problem solving and involved schools from 30 OECD member countries and 11 partner countries. Note that for Science and Reading, the means displayed are for "All Students", but for these two subjects (domains), not all of the students answered questions in these domains. In the 2003 OECD Technical Report (pages 208, 209), there are different country means (different than those displayed below) available for students who had exposure to these domains.

PISA 2003

OECD members at the time of the study are in boldface. The United Kingdom was disqualified due to a low response rate. Mathematics Science Reading Problem solving 1 Hong Kong, China 550 2 Finland 544 3 Korea 542 4 Netherlands 538 5 Liechtenstein 536 6 Japan 534 7 Canada 532 8 Belgium 529 9 Macau, China 527 10 Switzerland 527 11 Australia 524 12 New Zealand 523 13 Czech Republic 516 14 Iceland 515 15 Denmark 514 16 France 511 17 Sweden 509 18 Austria 506 19 Germany 503 20 Ireland 503 21 Slovakia 498 22 Norway 495 23 Luxembourg 493 24 Poland 490 25 Hungary 490 26 Spain 485 27 Latvia 483 28 United States 483 29 Russia 468 30 Portugal 466 31 Italy 466 32 Greece 445 33 Serbia and Montenegro 437 34 Turkey 423 35 Uruguay 422 36 Thailand 417 37 Mexico 385 38 Indonesia 360 39 Tunisia 359 40 Brazil 356 1 Finland 548 2 Japan 548 3 Hong Kong, China 539 4 Korea 538 5 Liechtenstein 525 6 Australia 525 7 Macau, China 525 8 Netherlands 524 9 Czech Republic 523 10 New Zealand 521 11 Canada 519 12 Switzerland 513 13 France 511 14 Belgium 509 15 Sweden 506 16 Ireland 505 17 Hungary 503 18 Germany 502 19 Poland 498 20 Slovakia 495 21 Iceland 495 22 United States 491 23 Austria 491 24 Russia 489 25 Latvia 489 26 Spain 487 27 Italy 486 28 Norway 484 29 Luxembourg 483 30 Greece 481 31 Denmark 475 32 Portugal 468 33 Uruguay 438 34 Serbia and Montenegro 436 35 Turkey 434 36 Thailand 429 37 Mexico 405 38 Indonesia 395 39 Brazil 390 40 Tunisia 385 1 Finland 543 2 Korea 534 3 Canada 528 4 Australia 525 5 Liechtenstein 525 6 New Zealand 522 7 Ireland 515 8 Sweden 514 9 Netherlands 513 10 Hong Kong, China 510 11 Belgium 507 12 Norway 500 13 Switzerland 499 14 Japan 498 15 Macau, China 498 16 Poland 497 17 France 496 18 United States 495 19 Denmark 492 20 Iceland 492 21 Germany 491 22 Austria 491 23 Latvia 491 24 Czech Republic 489 25 Hungary 482 26 Spain 481 27 Luxembourg 479 28 Portugal 478 29 Italy 476 30 Greece 472 31 Slovakia 469 32 Russia 442 33 Turkey 441 34 Uruguay 434 35 Thailand 420 36 Serbia and Montenegro 412 37 Brazil 403 38 Mexico 400 39 Indonesia 382 40 Tunisia 375 1 Korea 550 2 Hong Kong, China 548 3 Finland 548 4 Japan 547 5 New Zealand 533 6 Macau, China 532 7 Australia 530 8 Liechtenstein 529 9 Canada 529 10 Belgium 525 11 Switzerland 521 12 Netherlands 520 13 France 519 14 Denmark 517 15 Czech Republic 516 16 Germany 513 17 Sweden 509 18 Austria 506 19 Iceland 505 20 Hungary 501 21 Ireland 498 22 Luxembourg 494 23 Slovakia 492 24 Norway 490 25 Poland 487 26 Latvia 483 27 Spain 482 28 Russia 479 29 United States 477 30 Portugal 470 31 Italy 469 32 Greece 448 33 Thailand 425 34 Serbia and Montenegro 420 35 Uruguay 411 36 Turkey 408 37 Mexico 384 38 Brazil 371 39 Indonesia 361 40 Tunisia 345

PISA 2000

The results for the first cycle of the PISA survey were released on 14 November 2001. 265,000 15 year-olds were tested in 28 OECD countries and 4 partner countries on mathematics, science and reading. An additional 11 countries were tested later in 2002.

PISA 2000

OECD members as of the time of the study are in boldface. The 11 partner countries tested in 2002 after the main group of 32 are italicized. Mathematics Science Reading 1 Hong Kong, China 560 2 Japan 557 3 Korea 547 4 New Zealand 537 5 Finland 536 6 Australia 533 7 Canada 533 8 Switzerland 529 9 United Kingdom 529 10 Belgium 520 11 France 517 12 Austria 515 13 Denmark 514 14 Iceland 514 15 Liechtenstein 514 16 Sweden 510 17 Ireland 503 18 Norway 499 19 Czech Republic 498 20 United States 493 21 Germany 490 22 Hungary 488 23 Russia 478 24 Spain 476 25 Poland 470 26 Latvia 463 27 Italy 457 28 Portugal 454 29 Greece 447 30 Luxembourg 446 31 Israel 433 32 Thailand 432 33 Bulgaria 430 34 Argentina 388 35 Mexico 387 36 Chile 384 37 Albania 381 38 Macedonia 381 39 Indonesia 367 40 Brazil 334 41 Peru 292 1 Korea 552 2 Japan 550 3 Hong Kong, China 541 4 Finland 538 5 United Kingdom 532 6 Canada 529 7 New Zealand 528 8 Australia 528 9 Austria 519 10 Ireland 513 11 Sweden 512 12 Czech Republic 511 13 France 500 14 Norway 500 15 United States 499 16 Hungary 496 17 Iceland 496 18 Belgium 496 19 Switzerland 496 20 Spain 491 21 Germany 487 22 Poland 483 23 Denmark 481 24 Italy 478 25 Liechtenstein 476 26 Greece 461 27 Russia 460 28 Latvia 460 29 Portugal 459 30 Bulgaria 448 31 Luxembourg 443 32 Thailand 436 33 Israel 434 34 Mexico 422 35 Chile 415 36 Macedonia 401 37 Argentina 396 38 Indonesia 393 39 Albania 376 40 Brazil 375 41 Peru 333 1 Finland 546 2 Canada 534 3 New Zealand 529 4 Australia 528 5 Ireland 527 6 Hong Kong, China 525 7 Korea 525 8 United Kingdom 523 9 Japan 522 10 Sweden 516 11 Austria 507 12 Belgium 507 13 Iceland 507 14 Norway 505 15 France 505 16 United States 504 17 Denmark 497 18 Switzerland 494 19 Spain 493 20 Czech Republic 492 21 Italy 487 22 Germany 484 23 Liechtenstein 483 24 Hungary 480 25 Poland 479 26 Greece 474 27 Portugal 470 28 Russia 462 29 Latvia 458 30 Israel 452 31 Luxembourg 441 32 Thailand 431 33 Bulgaria 430 34 Mexico 422 35 Argentina 418 36 Chile 410 37 Brazil 396 38 Macedonia 373 39 Indonesia 371 40 Albania 349 41 Peru 327

Comparison with other studies

The correlation between PISA 2003 and TIMSS 2003 grade 8 country means is 0.84 in mathematics, 0.95 in science. The values go down to 0.66 and 0.79 if the two worst performing developing countries are excluded. Correlations between different scales and studies are around 0.80. The high correlations between different scales and studies indicate common causes of country differences (e.g. educational quality, culture, wealth or genes) or a homogenous underlying factor of cognitive competence. European Economic Area countries perform slightly better in PISA; the Commonwealth of Independent States and Asian countries in TIMSS. Content balance and years of schooling explain most of the variation.

Reception

The results from PISA 2003 and PISA 2006 were featured in the 2010 documentary Waiting for "Superman".

China

Education professor Yong Zhao has noted that PISA 2009 did not receive much attention in the Chinese media, and that the high scores in China are due to excessive workload and testing, adding that it's "no news that the Chinese education system is excellent in preparing outstanding test takers, just like other education systems within the Confucian cultural circle: Singapore, Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong."

Students from Shanghai, China, had the top scores of every category (Mathematics, Reading and Science) in PISA 2009. In discussing these results, PISA spokesman Andreas Schleicher, Deputy Director for Education and head of the analysis division at the OECD’s directorate for education, described Shanghai as a pioneer of educational reform in which "there has been a sea change in pedagogy". Schleicher stated that Shanghai abandoned its "focus on educating a small elite, and instead worked to construct a more inclusive system. They also significantly increased teacher pay and training, reducing the emphasis on rote learning and focusing classroom activities on problem solving."

Schleicher also states that PISA tests administered in rural China have produced some results approaching the OECD average: Citing further, as-yet-unpublished OECD research, Schleicher said, "We have actually done Pisa in 12 of the provinces in China. Even in some of the very poor areas you get performance close to the OECD average." Schleicher says that for a developing country, China's 99.4% enrollment in primary education is "the envy of many countries". He maintains that junior secondary school participation rates in China are now 99%; and in Shanghai, not only has senior secondary school enrollment attained 98%, but admissions into higher education have achieved 80% of the relevant age group. Schleicher believes that this growth reflects quality, not just quantity, which he contends the top PISA ranking of Shanghai's secondary education confirms. Schleicher believes that China has also expanded school access and has moved away from learning by rote. According to Schleicher, Russia performs well in rote-based assessments, but not in PISA, whereas China does well in both rote-based and broader assessments.

Denmark

University of Copenhagen Professor Svend Kreiner, who examined in detail PISA's 2006 reading results, noted that in 2006 only about ten percent of the students who took part in PISA were tested on all 28 reading questions. "This in itself is ridiculous," Kreiner told Stewart. "Most people don't know that half of the students taking part in PISA (2006) do not respond to any reading item at all. Despite that, PISA assigns reading scores to these children."

Finland

The stable, high marks of Finnish students have attracted a lot of attention. According to Hannu Simola the results reflect a paradoxical mix of progressive policies implemented through a rather conservative pedagogic setting, where the high levels of teachers' academic preparation, social status, professionalism and motivation for the job are concomitant with the adherence to traditional roles and methods by both teachers and pupils in Finland's changing, but still quite paternalistic culture. Others advance Finland's low poverty rate as a reason for its success. Finnish education reformer Pasi Sahlberg attributes Finland's high educational achievements to its emphasis on social and educational equality and stress on cooperation and collaboration, as opposed to the competition among teachers and schools that prevails in other nations.

India

Of the 74 countries tested in the PISA 2009 cycle including the "+" nations, the two Indian states came up 72nd and 73rd out of 74 in both reading and mathematics, and 73rd and 74th in science. India's poor performance may not be linguistic as some suggested. 12.87% of US students, for example, indicated that the language of the test differed from the language spoken at home. while 30.77% of Himachal Pradesh students indicated that the language of the test differed from the language spoken at home, a significantly higher percent However, unlike American students, those Indian students with a different language at home did better on the PISA test than those with the same language. India's poor performance on the PISA test is consistent with India's poor performance in the only other instance when India's government allowed an international organization to test its students and consistent with India's own testing of its elite students in a study titled Student Learning in the Metros 2006. These studies were conducted using TIMSS questions. The poor result in PISA was greeted with dismay in the Indian media. The BBC reported that as of 2008, only 15% of India's students reach high school.

Italy / South Tyrol

In 2003 South Tyrol (Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano / Autonome Provinz Bozen), a predominantly German-speaking province in the north of Italy, took part in the PISA project for the first time in order to have a regional result as an adjudicated region. In the rest of Italy PISA is conducted by INVALSI (Istituto nazionale per la valutazione del sistema educativo di istruzione e di formazione), a formally independent research institution affiliated to the Ministry of Education, whereas in South Tyrol PISA was carried out by the regional Education Authority itself (Intendenza scolastica / Schulamt, since 2018 renamed into Bildungsdirektion), which is part of the South Tyrolean regional government. At the end of 2004, in the months prior to the announcement of the test results, the regional Education Authority in Bolzano / Bozen downplayed the validity of the PISA assessment and commissioned alternative school evaluations, preparing the public for a mediocre test result. According to the official PISA report 2003, however, South Tyrol seemed to even beat the PISA world champion Finland.

Critique

Right from the beginning, there was scepticism as to how South Tyrol succeeded in outdoing the neighbouring Italian and Austrian provinces. On the front page of its weekend edition for 29/30 January 2005, the South Tyrolean newspaper Neue Südtiroler Tageszeitung published a harsh critique and revealed that the South Tyrolean Education Authority had secretly eliminated more than 300 students from the 1500 students officially drawn as South Tyrolean test sample by the PISA Consortium, and soon more inconsistencies were to surface:

• Lack of independence of the South Tyrolean PISA board: In South Tyrol, PISA was not conducted by a nominally independent body like the local university Freie Universität Bozen or the European Academy EURAC, both of which have ample expertise in the field of education, but by the so-called Pedagogical Institute (Pädagogisches Institut, director: Rudolf Meraner), which was part of the Education Authority, which in its turn was part of the regional government. A few years later the Pedagogical Institute was nominally absorbed into the Education Authority and renamed into Department for Innovation and Counselling (with the same director: Rudolf Meraner).
• Exploitation for political ends: In the most influential mass media, the regional PISA results were presented as a triumph of the regional government and the SVP (Südtiroler Volkspartei or South Tyrolean People’s Party) ruling party’s policy, although the legal framework for all high schools in Italy is a purely national domain. For all the political autonomy granted to South Tyrol, this region still has the same types of schools and follows the same curricula as do all Italian regions. Mass media like the most-read South Tyrolean newspaper, Dolomiten, whose owner Michel Ebner is a prominent party member of the ruling SVP, did not either try to explain why the secondary schools attended by the Italian speaking students in the same Province did considerably worse, although it is the same regional government run by the SVP which is in charge of the Italian and the German school administration.
• Harassment of Critics: People who criticized the official PISA results and pointed out violations of the technical rules were officially threatened by the provincial governor, Luis Durnwalder, with libel action for slandering South Tyrol. On 16 March 2006, Durnwalder announced in a press conference that an Austrian teacher would be prosecuted and sued for damages simply because the teacher, in a letter sent to the Austrian Ministry of Education, had mentioned the fact that the South Tyrolean Education Authority had eliminated 17 percent of the students from the regional sample, thereby rendering invalid the regional PISA result. A year later, however, Mr Durnwalder had to admit that he had never taken legal action against the teacher and that there were no legal proceedings obviously because the critique was correct. It is also noteworthy that the director of the Pedagogical Institute, Rudolf Meraner, and others have constantly deleted the original German Wikipedia article about the South Tyrolean PISA results, replacing it with public government statements.
• Regional results deliberately misrepresented as national results: By definition, the PISA result of South Tyrol is a subregional result, which is not fully valid because of the small sample of 1500 students. Such regional results mainly serve documentary purposes and cannot be compared with national results. Nonetheless, the South Tyrolean Education Authority and the regional government repeatedly, and falsely, claimed that the South Tyrolean test results are national, i.e. fully valid results, whereas the neighbouring regions like Tyrol (Austria) and Trentino (Italy), according to South Tyrolean press releases, only had subnational results.
• Manipulation of the sample: Elimination of 17 percent of students: For a subnational result, regions had to test 1500 students. Among all regions with a subnational result, worldwide, South Tyrol was the only one that failed to test 1500 students. For reasons never specified, the Education Authority had eliminated 292 students (i.e. 17 percent) from the 1500 students sample, testing only 1208 of the students selected by the PISA consortium. Failing to test all 1500 students, the South Tyrolean Education Authority violated the technical PISA rules and deprived the PISA result even of its limited technical validity as a subnational result. Later on the Education Authority had to admit that it had actually excluded all vocational students, whose performance is generally considered to be inferior to that of high schools, and all students of the third forms of so-called middle schools (scuole medie / Mittelschulen), who would have been part of the sample only if they repeated a class and were considered underachievers because normally 15 year old students are enrolled at high schools. From the official PISA report this manipulation can be easily deduced as the difference between total population of 15-year-olds (4.908) and total enrolled population of 15-year-olds at grade 7 or above (4.087). In subsequent PISA assessments, the OECD or rather the PISA consortium did not publish these key figures so that it was no longer possible to ascertain the number of students eliminated from the sample against the rules.
• Incorrect figures about Target Population and actual sample: In Italy, according to the figures officially made available by the INVALSI, the number of all 15-year-old students (574.611) paradoxically exceeds the number of all 15-year-old people (561.304). Due to this mistake, it is impossible to establish how many Italian students were actually identified as Italian target population, and it is also impossible to find out which percentage of South Tyrolean students had actually been presented as target population to the PISA consortium. In theory, the Education Authority could have excluded certain types of students from the target population even before the sample of 1500 students was drawn by the PISA consortium, from which the Education Authority later on eliminated 17 percent.

Comparison with similar assessments

The stunning South Tyrolean 2003 PISA results can hardly be reconciled with similar high school evaluations, which were not conducted or influenced by the South Tyrolean Education Authority itself. Three international or national large scale assessment projects painted a gloomy picture of the South Tyrolean students’ performance.

• Admission Test at Austrian Universities of Medicine (EMS = Eignungstest für das Medizinstudium): Over the last two decades, candidates graduating from South Tyrolean high schools have traditionally scored very badly at the entry examination. The quota system at Austrian Universities of Medicine makes sure that 75 percent of all applicants admitted to Medicine are Austrian nationals or students from South Tyrol, who are considered an Austrian minority in Italy. Hence, for Austrians and South Tyroleans it is easier to get a place at an Austrian University of Medicine, even with bad scores, than for Germans and other EU nationals because the number of EU students must not exceed 20 percent. Nevertheless, according to a study financed by the Austrian Ministry of Education, not even within the big 75 percent quota, South Tyroleans could get a place because of their mediocre entrance test results. South Tyrolean applicants had an average score of 96,5 whereas e.g. German applicants had an average score of 103,1. Interestingly, South Tyrolean applicants did even worse than Austrian applicants although Italian high school graduates are one year older. What is even worse, South Tyrolean high school graduates show a sharp gender gap with female candidates doing much worse than their male colleagues, which reflects the Italian high school system: Certain types of high schools popular with female students (e.g. licei linguistici, licei scienze umane) have little mathematics and sciences. The difference between the average female and the average male South Tyrolean score in the 2007 EMS was dramatic: 94,8 versus 100,1 points. Later on the Swiss EMS organisation disallowed the Austrian Universities of Medicine to use its EMS test and the Austrian universities introduced a new entrance test scheme with an extra quota for female students. South Tyrolean mass media did not cover the EMS debacle at all. Within the South Tyrolean parliament, however, there have been debates as to the reasons of the poor performance of South Tyrolean high school students. As a consequence of the EMS debacle, the former South Tyrolean governor, Luis Durnwalder, envisaged a collaboration between the University of Medicine in Innsbruck and the Hospital in Bolzano (Bozen) which should have led to a Euregio Medical School open to all North Tyrolean (i.e. Austrian) and South Tyrolean applicants without any entrance exam. Eventually, the South Tyrolean government adopted a more pragmatic approach, it subsidized, as it were, extra places for South Tyrolean students. This seems to be a breach of the national quota system and the entrance requirements as outlined by Austrian laws. The former South Tyrolean governor, Luis Durnwalder, however, frankly admitted to resort to this solution when he complained about the high amount of money South Tyrol paid to the University of Medicine in Innsbruck for buying extra places for South Tyrolean students.
• German DESI assessment of linguistic skills in German (mother tongue) and English (foreign language): Parallel with the 2003 PISA assessment, the South Tyrolean Education Authority commissioned a second assessment, obviously because the Education Authority expected a mediocre PISA result and had downplayed the importance of PISA. Like PISA, the DESI assessment was conducted against the technical rules because, again, all vocational students attending a vocational school (Berufsschule) and working part-time in a workshop or small firm, i.e. one third of the target population was excluded from the test. The South Tyrolean Education Authority also excluded the whole English test section from DESI, thereby depriving DESI of its main purpose, namely a comparison of German speaking students’ language competence in L1 and L2. The South Tyrolean Education Authority argued that in (bilingual) South Tyrol, German speaking students start with Italian as their first foreign language at elementary schools. This explanation, however, lacks credibility because in Germany, as well, many students assessed by DESI had main foreign languages other than English, e.g. French or even Latin (Bavaria), and the amount of weekly classroom teaching in English from the first form at elementary schools is the same in Germany and South Tyrol. In their official report, the German experts responsible for the DESI assessment in South Tyrol generally praised the quality of teaching, but the concrete results in the report reveal drastic shortcomings. For instance, in the semantic field of railway station (Bahnhof), not even one South Tyrolean student with German as his or her mother tongue knew the German word for a signal box (Stellwerk). Instead of marking such errors as errors, however, the German experts resorted to a methodologically disputable assumption. They claimed, without checking, that all words which South Tyrolean students did not know are, by definition, not used in the South Tyrolean variant of German and that these words must be excluded from the test (item bias), thus counting only correct answers. The DESI testers from Germany, however, did not check if the words excluded from DESI because of item bias actually were unknown. In fact, all words excluded from the South Tyrolean DESI questionnaire are common German words used in South Tyrol as well, i.e. for these words there are no South Tyrolean variants at all. For all the technical exceptions and modifications, the 2003 South Tyrolean DESI result was very disappointing. Only 14 percent of the South Tyrolean high school students came into the best achievement group, whereas in Germany almost half of the 15 year old students belong to this group. On the other hand, one fourth of the South Tyrolean German speaking students came into the lowest achievement group, which in Germany, in spite of all social problems in big towns, comprises only 7 percent of all students.
• Italian INVALSI assessments: Traditionally, the annual assessments conducted by the Italian INVALSI in the pre-PISA period painted a sorry picture of the northernmost Italian Regione Autonoma di Trentino e Alto Adige comprising the two autonomous provinces called Trentino (Italian speaking) and South Tyrol (predominantly German speaking). Schools in Trentino and South Tyrol did constantly worse than those in all other North Italian regions and even lagged behind the Italian average, though it is not clear if the sample of German speaking students was representative because, again, the South Tyrolean Education Authority was entitled to eliminate bad schools from the sample, thereby manipulating the validity of the assessment. To some extent, two South Tyrolean anomalies may account for the traditional bad performance of South Tyrolean students in international evaluations. Until recently, no pedagogical qualifications were required for teachers, not even for permanently employed teachers (insegnanti di ruolo / Stammrollenlehrer) appointed by the Education Authority in Bolzano (Bozen) through a so-called concorso. Besides, the admission criteria for the South Tyrolean concorsi have always been inconsistent. For example, a South Tyrolean student who studied at an Italian university German as a Foreign Language or Art History, automatically obtained the teaching license for completely unrelated subjects, like History and Latin, at South Tyrolean high schools.

United States

Two studies have compared high achievers in mathematics on the PISA and those on the U.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Comparisons were made between those scoring at the "advanced" and "proficient" levels in mathematics on the NAEP with the corresponding performance on the PISA. Overall, 30 nations had higher percentages than the U.S. of students at the "advanced" level of mathematics. The only OECD countries with worse results were Portugal, Greece, Turkey, and Mexico. Six percent of U.S. students were "advanced" in mathematics compared to 28 percent in Taiwan. The highest ranked state in the U.S. (Massachusetts) was just 15th in the world if it was compared with the nations participating in the PISA. 31 nations had higher percentages of "proficient" students than the U.S. Massachusetts was again the best U.S. state, but it ranked just ninth in the world if compared with the nations participating in the PISA.

Comparisons with results for the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) appear to give different results—suggesting that the U.S. states actually do better in world rankings. This can likely be traced to the different material being covered and the United States teaching mathematics in a style less harmonious with the "Realistic Mathematics Education" which forms the basis of the exam. Countries that commonly use this teaching method score higher on PISA, and less highly on TIMSS and other assessments.

Poverty

Stephen Krassen, professor emeritus at the University of Southern California, and Mel Riddile of the NASSP attributed the relatively low performance of students in the United States to the country's high rate of child poverty, which exceeds that of other OECD countries. However, individual US schools with poverty rates comparable to Finland's (below 10%), as measured by reduced-price school lunch participation, outperform Finland; and US schools in the 10–24% reduced-price lunch range are not far behind.

Reduced school lunch participation is the only available intra-poverty indicator for US schoolchildren. In the United States, schools in locations in which less than 10% of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch averaged PISA scores of 551 (higher than any other OECD country). This can be compared with the other OECD countries (which have tabled figures on children living in relative poverty):

Country	Percent of reduced school lunches (US) Percent of relative child poverty (Other OECD countries)	PISA score
United States	< 10%	551
Finland	3.4%	536
Netherlands	9.0%	508
Belgium	6.7%	506
United States	10%–24.9%	527
Canada	13.6%	524
New Zealand	16.3%	521
Japan	14.3%	520
Australia	11.6%	515
United States	25–49.9%	502
Estonia	40.1%	501
United States	50–74.9%	471
Russian Federation	58.3%	459
United States	> 75%	446

Sampling errors

In 2013 Martin Carnoy of the Stanford University Graduate School of Education and Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute released a report, "What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?", analyzing the 2009 PISA data base. Their report found that U.S. PISA test scores had been lowered by a sampling error that over-represented adolescents from the most disadvantaged American schools in the test-taking sample. The authors cautioned that international test scores are often "interpreted to show that American students perform poorly when compared to students internationally" and that school reformers then conclude that "U.S. public education is failing." Such inferences, made before the data has been carefully analyzed, they say, "are too glib" and "may lead policymakers to pursue inappropriate and even harmful reforms."

Carnoy and Rothstein observe that in all countries, students from disadvantaged backgrounds perform worse than those from advantaged backgrounds, and the US has a greater percentage of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The sampling error on the PISA results lowered U.S. scores for 15-year-olds even further, they say. The authors add, however, that in countries such as Finland, the scores of disadvantaged students tends to be stagnant, whereas in the U.S the scores of disadvantaged students have been steadily rising over time, albeit still lagging behind their those of their more advantaged peers. When the figures are adjusted for social class, the PISA scores of all US students would still remain behind those of the highest scoring countries, nevertheless, the scores of US students of all social backgrounds have shown a trajectory of improvement over time, notably in mathematics, a circumstance PISA's report fails to take into account.

Carnoy and Rothstein write that PISA spokesman Schleicher has been quoted saying that "international education benchmarks make disappointing reading for the U.S." and that "in the U.S. in particular, poverty was destiny. Low-income American students did (and still do) much worse than high-income ones on PISA. But poor kids in Finland and Canada do far better relative to their more privileged peers, despite their disadvantages" (Ripley 2011). Carnoy and Rothstein state that their report's analysis shows Schleicher and Ripley's claims to be untrue. They further fault the way PISA's results have persistently been released to the press before experts have time to evaluate them; and they charge the OECD reports with inconsistency in explaining such factors as the role of parental education. Carnoy and Rothstein also note with alarm that the US secretary of education Arne Duncan regularly consults with PISA's Andreas Schleicher in formulating educational policy before other experts have been given a chance to analyze the results. Carnoy and Rothstein's report (written before the release of the 2011 database) concludes:

We are most certain of this: To make judgments only on the basis of national average scores, on only one test, at only one point in time, without comparing trends on different tests that purport to measure the same thing, and without disaggregation by social class groups, is the worst possible choice. But, unfortunately, this is how most policymakers and analysts approach the field.

The most recent test for which an international database is presently available is PISA, administered in 2009. A database for TIMSS 2011 is scheduled for release in mid-January 2013. In December 2013, PISA will announce results and make data available from its 2012 test administration. Scholars will then be able to dig into TIMSS 2011 and PISA 2012 databases so they can place the publicly promoted average national results in proper context. The analyses we have presented in this report should caution policymakers to await understanding of this context before drawing conclusions about lessons from TIMSS or PISA assessments.

Further reading

Official websites and reports

• OECD/PISA website
  • OECD (1999): Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills. A New Framework for Assessment. Paris: OECD, ISBN 92-64-17053-7 [1]
  • OECD (2001): Knowledge and Skills for Life. First Results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000.
  • OECD (2003a): The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework. Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. Paris: OECD, ISBN 978-92-64-10172-2 [2]
  • OECD (2004a): Learning for Tomorrow's World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD, ISBN 978-92-64-00724-6 [3]
  • OECD (2004b): Problem Solving for Tomorrow's World. First Measures of Cross-Curricular Competencies from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD, ISBN 978-92-64-00642-3
  • OECD (2005): PISA 2003 Technical Report. Paris: OECD, ISBN 978-92-64-01053-6
  • OECD (2007): Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World: Results from PISA 2006 [4]
  • OECD (2014): PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems (Volume V) [5]

Reception and political consequences

• A. P. Jakobi, K. Martens: Diffusion durch internationale Organisationen: Die Bildungspolitik der OECD. In: K. Holzinger, H. Jörgens, C. Knill: Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2007.

France

• N. Mons, X. Pons: The reception and use of Pisa in France.

Germany

• E. Bulmahn [then federal secretary of education]: PISA: the consequences for Germany. OECD observer, no. 231/232, May 2002. pp. 33–34.
• H. Ertl: Educational Standards and the Changing Discourse on Education: The Reception and Consequences of the PISA Study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education, v 32 n 5 pp 619–634 Nov 2006.

United Kingdom

• S. Grek, M. Lawn, J. Ozga: Study on the Use and Circulation of PISA in Scotland. [6]

Books

• H. Brügelmann: Vermessene Schulen - standardisierte Schüler. Beltz-Verlag, Weinheim (Deutsch, English summary: https://www.academia.edu/15203894/Evidence-Based_Pedagogy ).
• S. Hopmann, G. Brinek, M. Retzl (eds.): PISA zufolge PISA. PISA According to PISA. LIT-Verlag, Wien 2007, ISBN 3-8258-0946-3 (partly in German, partly in English)
• T. Jahnke, W. Meyerhöfer (eds.): PISA & Co – Kritik eines Programms. Franzbecker, Hildesheim 2007 (2nd edn.), ISBN 978-3-88120-464-4 (in German)
• R. Münch: Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten: Bildung und Wissenschaft unter dem Regime von PISA, McKinsey & Co. Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp, 2009. ISBN 978-3-518-12560-1 (in German)

Websites

• J . Wuttke: Critical online bibliography
• Correlation of 2009-PISA Scores with National GDP PISA versus GDP

Video clips

• PISA: Measuring student success around the world