When governments celebrate international PISA rankings, how closely should we examine the evidence behind them?
Teachers are central to making education systems perform well. They need to be equipped with strong teaching skills – not just subject knowledge ~ OECD Secretary General.
I’ve taken a look over the latest PISA report. I haven’t read all 377 pages(!), or the Department for Education’s 195-page national report. I’ve read the executive summaries, the conclusions and looked over most of the tables and graphics.
I’ve been left with the following questions:
Who took part and who didn’t?
Having questioned these rankings in 2013 and 2019, PISA still offers a useful benchmark, provided we examine what the results represent.
In England, 5,619 pupils from 183 schools participated (see page 8). Among pupils with matched data, 23.8% were eligible for free school meals in the past six years, compared with 39.6% of non-participants. Pupils receiving SEN support were also more common among non-participants.
These differences do not invalidate the PISA findings, but they should influence how confidently we describe national performance. N.B. As of January 2026, 2.21 million pupils (26.5%) across England are eligible for free school meals.
Did pupils give their best?
PISA is a low-stakes assessment for pupils, yet its results carry considerable weight for governments. If I were a pupil sitting a PISA test and I were told, “Don’t worry about it,” then I wouldn’t worry about it, or put maximum effort into the test. How does this impact the final results and government perceptions?
Most pupils receive no individual feedback, and their scores do not contribute to their qualifications.
The OECD reports that across 35 member countries, the average self-reported effort fell by half a point on a 10-point scale between 2018 and 2025. The proportion reporting very little effort rose from 3.5% to 5.4%. This raises a familiar assessment question: How much does a score reflect what pupils know, and how much does it reflect their willingness to demonstrate it?
The PISA report investigates pupil effort, but does not establish that reduced effort explains the decline in performance.
Do rankings show improvement?
A country can improve its position because other countries perform worse.
Political division here in England will conflate progressive or traditional methods with school funding, technology, or other policy interventions. Others who are fixated on Nordic countries will be curious to understand why, for example, Finland has declined since 2022.
England scored above the OECD average in science, reading and mathematics, but the trends tell a more qualified story.
Science performance improved significantly from 2022, while reading showed no significant change, and mathematics remained below its 2018 level. The OECD also publishes uncertainty ranges around countries’ ranks because small score differences may not represent meaningful differences in performance.
Before celebrating any position in the table, we should ask whether pupils’ attainment has improved, over which period, and with what degree of confidence.
What can governments legitimately claim?
PISA can help governments identify patterns, compare outcomes and investigate educational inequalities.
However, a rise in scores does not establish that a particular curriculum, accountability policy or teaching approach caused it. Some will argue that it does, but the OECD’s analytical sections repeatedly distinguish association from causation. Teachers should expect the same care in political announcements: recognising a positive result is reasonable; attributing it to a preferred reform requires additional evidence.
What should teachers take away?
For schools and colleges, PISA is the most useful when it prompts questions about learning.
Are our pupils understanding complex texts, explaining their reasoning and evaluating information? Do they receive the support they need, and are digital tools helping them think? For example, the findings on teacher support, reading and AI offer starting points for professional discussion, rather than instructions for a new whole-school initiative.
We can take PISA seriously while remaining cautious about its rankings. If we exclude the Chinese and Singaporean jurisdictions, Estonia topped those rankings in 2018.
This leads me to ask: When was the last time you heard anyone at your school, or a politician on television, talk about what’s happening in Estonia? That tells you all you need to know…
Image: AI-generated using OpenAI