Programme for International Student Assessment (2000 to 2012)

Educational assessment and evaluation 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

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.

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

References

PISA 2009 Technical Report, 2012, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/31/50036771.pdf
Baldi, Stéphane; Jin, Ying; Skemer, Melanie; Green, Patricia J; Herget, Deborah; Xie, Holly (10 December 2007), Highlights From PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context (PDF), NCES, retrieved 14 December 2013, PISA 2006 reading literacy results are not reported for the United States because of an error in printing the test booklets. Furthermore, as a result of the printing error, the mean performance in mathematics and science may be misestimated by approximately 1 score point. The impact is below one standard error.
^ PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary (PDF), OECD, 7 December 2010
^ ACER releases results of PISA 2009+ participant economies, ACER, 16 December 2011, archived from the original on 8 October 2014, retrieved 15 April 2016
^ PISA 2012 Results in Focus (PDF), OECD, 3 December 2013, retrieved 4 December 2013
CB Online Staff. "PR scores low on global report card", Caribbean Business, 26 September 2014. Retrieved on 3 January 2015.
OECD (2014): PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems (Volume V), http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2012-results-skills-for-life-volume-v_9789264208070-en
^ PISA 2012 Results OECD. Retrieved 4 December 2013
^ Sedghi, Ami; Arnett, George; Chalabi, Mona (3 December 2013), "Pisa 2012 results: which country does best at reading, maths and science?", The Guardian, retrieved 14 February 2013
Adams, Richard (3 December 2013), "Swedish results fall abruptly as free school revolution falters", The Guardian, retrieved 3 December 2013
Kärrman, Jens (3 December 2013), "Löfven om Pisa: Nationell kris", Dagens Nyheter, retrieved 3 December 2013
Multi-dimensional Data Request, OECD, 2010, archived from the original on 14 July 2012, retrieved 28 June 2012
PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary (Figure 1 only) (PDF), OECD, 2010, retrieved 28 June 2012
Walker, Maurice (2011), PISA 2009 Plus Results (PDF), OECD, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2011, retrieved 28 June 2012
Learning for Tomorrow's World First Results from PISA 2003 (PDF), OECD, 14 December 2004, retrieved 6 January 2014
PISA 2003 Technical Report (PDF), OECD
Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow: Further Results from PISA 2000 (PDF), OECD, 2003, retrieved 6 January 2014
M. L. Wu: A Comparison of PISA and TIMSS 2003 achievement results in Mathematics. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, New York, March 2008.
"Waiting for "Superman" trailer". YouTube. 7 May 2010. Retrieved 8 October 2010.
Yong Zhao (10 December 2010), A True Wake-up Call for Arne Duncan: The Real Reason Behind Chinese Students Top PISA Performance
Gumbel, Peter (7 December 2010), "China Beats Out Finland for Top Marks in Education", Time, archived from the original on 10 December 2010, retrieved 27 June 2012
^ Cook, Chris (7 December 2010), "Shanghai tops global state school rankings", Financial Times, retrieved 28 June 2012
Mance, Henry (7 December 2010), "Why are Chinese schoolkids so good?", Financial Times, retrieved 28 June 2012
"Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 15 April 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
Simola, Hannu (2005), "The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education" (PDF), Comparative Education, 41 (4): 455–470, doi:10.1080/03050060500317810, S2CID 145325152
^ "The Economics Behind International Education Rankings Archived 26 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine" National Educational Association
^ Riddile, Mel (15 December 2010), PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid, National Association of Secondary School Principals, archived from the original on 22 January 2014, retrieved 15 April 2016
Cleland, Elizabeth (29 December 2011). "What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success – Anu Partanen". The Atlantic.
^ "Database – PISA 2009". Pisa2009.acer.edu.au. Archived from the original on 22 March 2016. Retrieved 15 April 2016.
http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/EdStats/INDprwp08b.pdf
Initiatives, Educational (November 2006), "Student Learning in the Metros" (PDF), Educational Initiatives
Vishnoi, Anubhuti (7 January 2012), "Poor PISA ranks: HRD seeks reason", The Indian Express
Masani, Zareer (27 February 2008). "India still Asia's reluctant tiger". BBC News.
Cf. http://www.provincia.bz.it/bildung-sprache/deutschsprachige-schule/mitteilungen.asp?publ_action=300&publ_image_id=469121. Retrieved 11 April 2021.
Cf. INFO, December 2004 (i.e. a Circular Letter edited by the regional Education Authority): «In all fields, the South Tyrolean schools achieved a first-rate performance» (p. 2); Mr Höllrigl, then director of the Education Authority, and Mr Meraner, then head of the PISA board, in INFO, January 2005: «I am surprised that we have already become world leaders» (p. 12); Mr Meraner in the most-read daily Dolomiten, 18 February 2005: «We are the world champions even in Problem Solving».
Cf. the South Tyrolean weekly FF, 17 February 2005, p. 10: "Land klagt Lehrer [Regional Government’s Action against Teacher", and FF, 16 March 2006, in which Mr Durnwalder admits to the failed legal suit.
Cf. Dolomiten, 27 January 2005: Mr Hilpold misinformed the press on behalf of the regional government: «South Tyrol was assessed as a nation . It is due to the fact that we were assessed as a nation that we may compare our results with other nations.» Mr Meraner, director of the Pedagogical Institute, also wrongly claimed that the South Tyrolean overall result may be compared to that of other «nations» because, as he falsely stated, South Tyrol had a national result of its own.
Cf. the PISA report: Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris, 2004. p. 469; online version: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf. Retrieved 8 March 2012.
Cf. the PISA report: Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris, 2004. p. 321; online version: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf.
Cf. the EMS study published by the Austrian Ministry of Research in 2007: http://www.bmwf.gv.at/startseite/mini_menue/service/publikationen/wissenschaft/universitaetswesen/spiel_studie/. Retrieved 1 April 2012. Abridged version: https://docplayer.org/18915390-Evaluation-der-eignungstests-fuer-das-medizinstudium-in-oesterreich.html = Evaluation der Eignungstests für das Medizinstudium in Österreich - PDF Free Download (docplayer.org) – retrieved 10 January 2021.
E.g. in the year 2007: c.f. the parliamentary question of an opposition party: https://suedtiroler-freiheit.com/2007/08/16/landtagsanfrage-zu-den-medizinstudium-ausbildungsplaetzen. Retrieved 6 April 2021. Or the more recent article in an online newspaper: https://www.salto.bz/de/article/25082016/braucht-suedtirol-die-oesterreicher-quote. Retrieved 6 April 2021.
Cf. the interview in the Austrian daily Tiroler Tageszeitung, 3 November 2008, p. 4.
An abridged version of the South Tyrolean DESI report was published by the Pedagogical Institute on its site: http://www.provinz.bz.it/news/de/news.asp?news_action=5&news_article_id=138926. Retrieved 8 April 2021.
Cf. the reports published by INVALSI, or its predecessor SNV, Servizio nazionale di evaluazione: http://www.invalsi.it/invalsi/index.php?page=snv. Retrieved 27 December 2009.
Paul E. Peterson, Ludger Woessmann, Eric A. Hanushek, and Carlos X. Lastra-Anadón (2011) "Are U.S. students ready to compete? The latest on each state's international standing." Education Next 11:4 (Fall): 51–59. http://educationnext.org/are-u-s-students-ready-to-compete/
Eric A. Hanushek, Paul E. Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann (2011) "Teaching math to the talented." Education Next 11, no. 1 (Winter): 10–18. http://educationnext.org/teaching-math-to-the-talented/
Gary W. Phillips (2007) Chance favors the prepared mind: Mathematics and science indicators for comparing states. Washington: American Institutes for Research (14 November); Gary W. Phillips (2009) The Second Derivative:International Benchmarks in Mathematics For U.S. States and School Districts. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research (June).
"PISA Mathematics: A Teacher's Guide" (PDF). 13 August 2019.
Loveless, Tom. "International Tests Are Not All the Same". Brookings Institution.
quoted in Valerie Strauss, "How poverty affected U.S. PISA scores", The Washington Post, 9 December 2010.
"Stratifying PISA scores by poverty rates suggests imitating Finland is not necessarily the way to go for US schools". Simply Statistics. 23 August 2013.
"Child poverty statistics: how the UK compares to other countries", The Guardian. The same UNICEF figures were used by Riddile.
Highlights From PISA 2009, Table 3.
See, Martin Carnoy and Richard Rothstein, "What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?", Economic Policy Institute, 28 January 2013.
Valerie Strauss, "U.S. scores on international test lowered by sampling error: report", Washington Post, 15 January 2013.
Carnoy and Rothstein, "What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?", Economic Policy Institute, 28 January 2013
Schleicher was quoted by Amanda Ripley to this effect in her 2011 book, The Smartest Kids in The World (Simon and Schuster).
Carnoy and Rothstein, "What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?", EPI, 28 January 2013. Another scholar, Matthew di Carlo of the Albert Shanker Institute, criticized PISA for reporting its results in the form of national rankings, since rankings can give a misleading impression that differences between countries' scores are far larger than is actually the case. Di Carlo also faulted PISA's methodology for disregarding factors such as margin of error. See Matthew di Carlo, "Pisa For Our Time: A Balanced Look", Albert Shanker Institute website, 10 January 2011.
Carnoy and Rothstein, "What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?", EPI, January 28, 2013.

Misplaced Pages