PISA Scores 2022
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 results show Singapore leading with 575 in mathematics and 543 in reading. East Asian systems (Macao, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea) dominate top rankings. OECD average mathematics score fell 15 points (2018-2022) to 472, while reading declined 10 points—largest drops in PISA history, attributed to COVID-19 learning disruptions. 18 countries scored above OECD average across all three subjects.
PISA Score Insights
East Asian Dominance Continues
East Asian education systems maintain commanding PISA leadership. Mathematics 2022 top 10: Singapore 575, Macao 552, Taiwan 547, Hong Kong 540, Japan 536, South Korea 527, Estonia 510, Switzerland 508, Canada 497, Netherlands 493. Reading: Singapore 543, Ireland 516, Japan 516, South Korea 515, Taiwan 515, Estonia 511, Macao 510, Canada 507, USA 504, New Zealand 501. Science: Singapore 561, Macao 543, Japan 547, Taiwan 537, South Korea 528, Estonia 526, Canada 515, Finland 511, Australia 507, New Zealand 504. East Asian success attributed to: rigorous curricula emphasizing problem-solving, extensive after-school tutoring (hagwons in Korea, juku in Japan, buxiban in Taiwan), cultural emphasis on education and exam performance, teacher quality and training, high parental involvement and expectations. However, concerns about student well-being: South Korean students average 50+ study hours weekly, high stress, mental health issues. Singapore implementing reforms to reduce academic pressure while maintaining excellence.
Unprecedented COVID-19 Learning Losses
PISA 2022 revealed largest-ever score declines, primarily attributed to pandemic disruptions. OECD average mathematics dropped 15 points (487 in 2018 → 472 in 2022), equivalent to three-quarters of a school year. Reading fell 10 points (487 → 477), science declined 2 points (489 → 487). Countries with longest school closures showed steepest drops: Latin America (closed average 58 weeks) saw 30-40 point declines, Southeast Asia 25-35 points. Disadvantaged students hit hardest: socioeconomic gap widened by 8 points on average—remote learning exacerbated inequities (device access, internet, parental support, home study space). Country variations: East Asian systems mostly maintained scores (shorter closures, effective remote systems), Nordic countries mixed results, USA declined 13 points in math despite moderate closures. Recovery uncertain: 2025 PISA (administered late 2024) will show whether scores rebounding or losses permanent. UNESCO estimates pandemic set back learning by 1.0-1.5 years globally, affecting 1.6 billion students.
Equity Gaps Persist Across and Within Countries
PISA reveals massive achievement gaps between and within countries. Between-country gap: 165 points separate Singapore (575) from Dominican Republic (410) in math—equivalent to 6+ years of schooling. Within-country socioeconomic gaps: OECD average 93-point difference between top and bottom socioeconomic quartiles (richest 25% vs poorest 25%), equivalent to 3+ years of schooling. Widest gaps: France 117 points, Luxembourg 115, Israel 114, Hungary 110—highly stratified systems, early tracking. Narrowest gaps: Macao 57, Estonia 61, Finland 65, Canada 68—comprehensive schools, late tracking, strong support systems. Gender gaps subject-specific: girls outperform boys in reading by 24 points globally (equivalent to 3/4 year of schooling), boys lead math by 9 points, science roughly equal. Immigrant gaps: first-generation immigrants score 41 points lower on average than native students (after accounting for socioeconomic background), though Canada and Australia achieve parity through targeted support. Urban-rural gaps: urban students score 31 points higher globally, but gap negligible in Finland, Estonia, Japan.
High Performers vs System-Wide Excellence
PISA distinguishes between high average scores and equitable excellence. "Resilient students"—socioeconomically disadvantaged yet high-achieving—comprise 11% globally but 18-22% in top-equity systems (Estonia, Finland, Canada, Japan, Singapore). Estonia exemplifies equity + excellence: 2nd in Europe behind Switzerland, but smallest socioeconomic gap, 15% resilient students, minimal urban-rural divide. Finland's decline: reading 520 (2009) → 490 (2018) → 490 (2022), but remains highly equitable. USA paradox: 504 reading (above OECD average), but 14% of students below baseline proficiency—larger low-performer share than most OECD countries. Singapore's challenge: 575 math, but 7% below baseline—perfectionist system still leaves some behind. "Floor and ceiling": systems like Japan, Estonia combine high averages with few low performers (<5% below baseline) and many top performers (>20% at highest levels). Grade repetition correlation: countries with high repetition rates (15-20% students held back) show lower PISA scores—retention associated with disengagement. Tracking effects: early tracking (age 10-12 into academic vs vocational) linked to wider gaps than late tracking (age 15-16).
PISA 2022 Mathematics Scores (Top 20 Countries)
Mean score for 15-year-old students
Key Finding: Top 20 mathematics: Singapore 575, Macao 552, Taiwan 547, Hong Kong 540, Japan 536, South Korea 527, Estonia 510, Switzerland 508, Canada 497, Netherlands 493, Ireland 492, Denmark 489, UK 489, Poland 489, Belgium 489, Austria 487, Slovenia 485, Czech Republic 487, Finland 484, Sweden 482. OECD average 472. East Asia dominates top 6 positions with 527-575 scores, 55-103 points above OECD average. European high-performers: Estonia, Switzerland lead continent. English-speaking: Canada, Ireland, UK above OECD average.
PISA 2022 Reading Scores (Top 20 Countries)
Mean score for 15-year-old students
Key Finding: Top 20 reading: Singapore 543, Ireland 516, Japan 516, South Korea 515, Taiwan 515, Estonia 511, Macao 510, Canada 507, USA 504, New Zealand 501, UK 494, Australia 498, Sweden 496, Denmark 489, Poland 489, Belgium 479, Switzerland 483, Czech Republic 489, Finland 490, Norway 477. OECD average 477. Less East Asian dominance than math—Singapore leads but Ireland ties Japan for 2nd. English-speaking countries strong: 5 of top 10 (Ireland, Canada, USA, New Zealand, UK). Estonia maintains excellence. Finland declining but still above average.
PISA 2022 Science Scores (Top 20 Countries)
Mean score for 15-year-old students
Key Finding: Top 20 science: Singapore 561, Macao 543, Japan 547, Taiwan 537, South Korea 528, Estonia 526, Canada 515, Finland 511, Australia 507, New Zealand 504, UK 500, USA 499, Switzerland 503, Poland 499, Ireland 504, Czech Republic 499, Belgium 491, Netherlands 488, Germany 492, Austria 491. OECD average 487. East Asian systems occupy top 5 with 528-561 scores. Estonia leads Europe at 6th globally. Anglosphere strong: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA all above OECD average. Germany performing below typical OECD standards.
OECD Average Score Trends (2012-2022)
Changes over time in mathematics, reading, and science
Key Finding: OECD average mathematics: 494 (2012), 490 (2015), 487 (2018), 472 (2022)—22-point decline over decade, with 15-point drop 2018-2022 (largest in PISA history, COVID-19 impact). Reading: 496 (2012), 493 (2015), 487 (2018), 477 (2022)—19-point decline, 10 points 2018-2022. Science: 501 (2012), 493 (2015), 489 (2018), 487 (2022)—14-point decline, stable 2018-2022. All three subjects trending downward even pre-pandemic, accelerated post-COVID. Math decline equivalent to 0.8 years of schooling lost. Affects most OECD countries, not just low performers.
Socioeconomic Achievement Gap by Country
Score difference between top and bottom socioeconomic quartiles (mathematics)
Key Finding: Mathematics socioeconomic gap (top 25% vs bottom 25%): Widest—France 117 points, Luxembourg 115, Israel 114, Hungary 110, Belgium 108, Germany 105, Switzerland 103, Slovakia 101, Czech Republic 99. OECD average 93 points. Narrowest—Macao 57, Estonia 61, Finland 65, Canada 68, Japan 72, Denmark 75, Norway 77, Iceland 79. Wider gaps indicate stratified systems with less mobility. Narrow gaps show equitable quality across socioeconomic strata. Gap equivalent to 3+ years of schooling in high-gap countries.
Gender Gaps in PISA 2022 by Subject
Score difference (positive = girls higher, negative = boys higher)
Key Finding: OECD average gender gaps: Reading girls +24 points (equivalent to 3/4 year of schooling), science girls +2 points (essentially equal), mathematics boys +9 points (girls lag). Reading gap largest: Finland girls +52, Jordan +50, Saudi Arabia +48, UAE +47, Albania +43—cultural/biological factors debated. Math gap largest: Japan boys +21, Italy +18, Chile +17, Costa Rica +16, Austria +15. Some countries achieve gender parity in math: Thailand, Philippines girls lead by 10+ points. Policy implications: targeted interventions can close gaps—single-sex math classes, female role models, anti-stereotype messaging effective in narrowing math gender gap by 30-40%.
Understanding PISA Assessments
What is PISA?
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), coordinated by OECD, tests 15-year-old students in mathematics, reading, and science every three years. First conducted 2000, most recent 2022 (published December 2023). 2022: 81 countries/economies participated, 690,000 students tested representing 29 million 15-year-olds globally. Students take 2-hour computer-based assessment (paper option for some countries). Tests not curriculum-based but assess application of knowledge to real-world situations—problem-solving, critical thinking, literacy in each domain. Rotating focus: each cycle emphasizes one subject (2022 focused on mathematics). Results reported as scaled scores: OECD average set to 500, standard deviation 100. Difference of 10 points roughly equivalent to 1/4 year of schooling; 40 points = 1 year.
Sampling and Participation
PISA uses two-stage stratified sampling: schools selected proportional to enrollment size, then 42 students randomly selected per school. Minimum requirements: 150 schools, 4,500 students per country. School participation rate must exceed 85%, student rate 80%—ensures representativeness. Countries may exclude up to 5% of students (special needs, language barriers). Some education systems test as separate entities: China (4 provinces: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang—not nationally representative), UK (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland separately), Spain (autonomous regions). This creates 81 participants from 70+ countries. Not all countries participate every cycle: USA skipped 2006, major economies like Nigeria, Pakistan not participating due to cost/capacity. Participation requires $400,000-$1.2M per country—prohibitive for poorest nations.
Score Interpretation and Proficiency Levels
PISA defines 6 proficiency levels per subject (Levels 1-6, with Level 1 subdivided into 1a/1b). Level 2 considered baseline proficiency—students can navigate routine tasks with direct instructions. Below Level 2: students struggle with basic applications, face difficulties in further learning and employment. OECD average 2022: 31% of students below Level 2 in mathematics (up from 24% in 2018), 26% below in reading (up from 23% in 2018). High performers (Level 5-6): can work with complex models, solve non-routine problems, think critically. OECD average: 9% high performers in math (down from 11% in 2018), 7% in reading. Singapore: 41% high performers in math, 26% in reading. Score distributions: most students cluster near country average; wide distributions indicate high inequality within education systems.
Limitations and Criticisms
Snapshot at age 15: doesn't capture long-term learning, later bloomers, or system outcomes (university completion, employment). Cultural/linguistic bias: tests developed primarily in English/French, translated to 80+ languages—translation equivalence imperfect, some cultures more test-oriented. Narrow definition of achievement: PISA emphasizes problem-solving, analytical thinking; doesn't assess creativity, social skills, physical education, arts. Gaming the system: some countries exclude low-performing students, delay grade progression so 15-year-olds are in higher grades, intensive test prep. Shanghai 2009-2015: topped rankings but represented only wealthy coastal region, not all China. Overemphasis on rankings: media focus on ranking positions rather than absolute scores or trends—movements of 5-10 points (statistically insignificant) generate headlines. Pressure on teachers: PISA results used for accountability, bonuses, criticism—can lead to teaching to the test, neglecting non-tested subjects. Doesn't measure equity of inputs: high scores may come from intensive after-school tutoring (Korea, Japan) placing pressure on students, or from equitable public systems (Finland, Estonia)—scores alone don't reveal paths.
2022 COVID-19 Context
PISA 2022 administered March-November 2022, during or just after pandemic disruptions. School closures: global average 41 weeks fully/partially closed, ranging from 12 weeks (Nordic countries) to 72 weeks (Philippines, Bangladesh). Remote learning quality varied drastically: high-income countries provided devices, live instruction; low-income relied on TV broadcasts, printed materials, or nothing. Socioeconomic impacts: disadvantaged students lacked devices, internet, space, parental support—gaps widened dramatically. Teacher preparedness: most received little training for remote instruction—quality declined. Testing conditions: some countries delayed PISA to 2023 citing pandemic impacts; those tested 2022 may underestimate true ability if students still recovering. Comparability concerns: pre-pandemic 2018 vs pandemic-affected 2022 scores—how much decline due to actual learning loss vs testing conditions, student motivation, mental health? OECD acknowledges 2022 results partially confounded by pandemic but argues assessment valid for understanding COVID impacts on learning.