How are students across the OECD performing in science, reading and mathematics?
Results from the 2025 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), should raise alarm bells in policymaking circles. Data from the 2025 PISA reveals that student performance in science, reading and mathematics across OECD countries continues to decline, with reading and mathematics reaching the lowest average ever recorded. On average, across 23 OECD countries, reading peaked around 2012, while science proficiency has declined gradually since 2009, and mathematics has declined sharply after 2018.
In 2025, the average performance in science across 23 OECD countries was 486 points, down five points from 2022, and average performance in reading dipped by 16 points to 466 points during the same period. Meanwhile, the average score in mathematics declined by 11 points. Between 2015 and 2025, average science scores fell modestly across OECD countries. Meanwhile, mathematics performance declined by 22 points, equivalent to just over one year of learning. Reading recorded the steepest decline across OECD countries, with scores falling 28 points, equivalent to about one and a half years of learning.
A summary of the 2025 PISA notes that declining reading performance is particularly concerning because reading skills are essential for finding, evaluating, interpreting, and reflecting on information — critical skills for lifelong learning and especially important when working with advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence. Based on the latest scores, one in five 15-year-old students across OECD countries is considered a low performer in science, mathematics, and reading, up from 16% in 2022. These students lack the foundational skills needed to succeed in further education, employment, and everyday life.
Wealth is a predictor of educational performance
Socio-economic background remains a powerful predictor of performance. Across OECD countries, advantaged students scored 85 points higher in science, 82 points higher in mathematics, and 75 points higher in reading. The gap narrowed between 2022 and 2025 largely because advantaged students recorded a much larger decline in scores across all three domains, while disadvantaged students' scores remained relatively unchanged from 2022 averages.
Girls outperform boys in science and reading
Girls have scored higher than boys in science and reading since 2018. While the gap in science was just a mere 2 points, the reading scores tell a different story. The average score for girls on the reading test was 481 points compared to 451 points for boys. Between 2015 and 2025, girls outperformed boys by at least 26 points and by as much as 31 points. As for mathematics, boys continue to outperform girls. In 2025, the average mathematics score for boys across OECD countries was 475 points compared with 463 points for girls.
What is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)?
PISA 2025 is the ninth cycle of the international comparative study since 2000, and the largest to date. It involved more than 760,000 students from 91 countries across the OECD, as well as other economies. PISA is administered every three years and measures 15-year-olds’ ability to use their skills and knowledge as they near the end of compulsory education to meet real-life challenges. The study measures mathematical, reading, and scientific literacy and provides a detailed look at one domain (the major domain) in each cycle. Proficiency in a different innovative domain is also assessed in each cycle.
The major domain of PISA 2025 was science, with mathematics and reading as minor domains. The innovative domain was Learning in the Digital World (LDW), which measures students’ capacity to engage in an iterative process of knowledge building and problem solving using computational tools.
Policymakers use PISA data to make informed decisions on education reforms, diagnose problems in education systems, and measure performance over time. Policymakers compare their country’s performance with other countries to identify strengths and weaknesses, and gaps that need to be addressed to improve outcomes.
