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. ^[1]

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. [2]
2009 [3]	Reading	34	41 + 10	470,000	10 additional non-OECD countries took the test in 2010. [4]
2012 [5]	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. [5] 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. [6] A subgroup of 44 countries and economies with about 85 000 students also took part in an optional computer-based assessment of problem solving. [7] 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, [8] including the OECD countries, several Chinese cities, Vietnam, Indonesia and several countries in South America. [5] The test lasted two hours, was paper-based and included both open-ended and multiple-choice questions. [8] The students and school staff also answered a questionnaire to provide background information about the students and the schools. [5] [8] 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. [5] 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.[ citation needed ] 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. [5] Qatar, Kazakhstan and Malaysia were the countries which showed the greatest improvement in mathematics. The USA and the United Kingdom showed no significant change. [9] 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. [10] [11] 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. [9] 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. [8]

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. [3] [12] [13] 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. [4] [14] 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. ^[15] 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. ^[16]

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. ^[17]

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. ^[18]

Reception

The results from PISA 2003 and PISA 2006 were featured in the 2010 documentary Waiting for "Superman". ^[19]

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." ^[20]

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." ^[21]

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." ^[22] 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. ^[22] Schleicher believes that China has also expanded school access and has moved away from learning by rote. ^[23] 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. ^[22]

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." ^[24]

Finland

The stable, high marks of Finnish students have attracted a lot of attention. According to Hannu Simola ^[25] 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. ^{[26] [27]} 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. ^[28]

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 ^[29] 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. ^[29] 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 ^[30] and consistent with India's own testing of its elite students in a study titled Student Learning in the Metros 2006. ^[31] These studies were conducted using TIMSS questions. The poor result in PISA was greeted with dismay in the Indian media. ^[32] The BBC reported that as of 2008, only 15% of India's students reach high school. ^[33]

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), ^[34] 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. ^[35]
• 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. ^[36] 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. ^[37]
• 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). ^[38] 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). ^[39] 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. ^[40] 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. ^[41] 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. ^[42]
• 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. ^[43]
• 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. ^[44] 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. ^{[45] [46]}

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. ^[47] 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. ^[48] Countries that commonly use this teaching method score higher on PISA, and less highly on TIMSS and other assessments. ^[49]

Poverty

Stephen Krassen, professor emeritus at the University of Southern California, ^[50] 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. ^{[26] [27]} 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. ^[51]

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): ^[27]

Country	Percent of reduced school lunches (US) [27] Percent of relative child poverty (Other OECD countries) [52]	PISA score [53]
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. ^[54] 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" ^[55] and "may lead policymakers to pursue inappropriate and even harmful reforms." ^[56]

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). ^[57] 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. ^[58] 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. ^[59]

References

1. PISA 2009 Technical Report, 2012, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/31/50036771.pdf
2. 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.
3. PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary (PDF), OECD, 7 December 2010
4. ACER releases results of PISA 2009+ participant economies, ACER, 16 December 2011, archived from the original on 8 October 2014, retrieved 15 April 2016
5. PISA 2012 Results in Focus (PDF), OECD, 3 December 2013, retrieved 4 December 2013
6. CB Online Staff. "PR scores low on global report card" Archived 2015-01-03 at the Wayback Machine , Caribbean Business , 26 September 2014. Retrieved on 3 January 2015.
7. 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
8. PISA 2012 Results OECD. Retrieved 4 December 2013
9. 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
10. Adams, Richard (3 December 2013), "Swedish results fall abruptly as free school revolution falters", The Guardian , retrieved 3 December 2013
11. Kärrman, Jens (3 December 2013), "Löfven om Pisa: Nationell kris", Dagens Nyheter , retrieved 3 December 2013
12. Multi-dimensional Data Request, OECD, 2010, archived from the original on 14 July 2012, retrieved 28 June 2012
13. PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary (Figure 1 only) (PDF), OECD, 2010, retrieved 28 June 2012
14. Walker, Maurice (2011), PISA 2009 Plus Results (PDF), OECD, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2011, retrieved 28 June 2012
15. Learning for Tomorrow's World First Results from PISA 2003 (PDF), OECD, 14 December 2004, retrieved 6 January 2014
16. PISA 2003 Technical Report (PDF), OECD
17. Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow: Further Results from PISA 2000 (PDF), OECD, 2003, retrieved 6 January 2014
18. 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.
19. "Waiting for "Superman" trailer". YouTube . Retrieved 8 October 2010.
20. Yong Zhao (10 December 2010), A True Wake-up Call for Arne Duncan: The Real Reason Behind Chinese Students Top PISA Performance
21. 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
22. Cook, Chris (7 December 2010), "Shanghai tops global state school rankings", Financial Times , retrieved 28 June 2012
23. Mance, Henry (7 December 2010), "Why are Chinese schoolkids so good?", Financial Times , retrieved 28 June 2012
24. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 15 April 2016.
25. 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
26. "The Economics Behind International Education Rankings" National Educational Association
27. 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
28. Cleland, Elizabeth. "What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success – Anu Partanen". The Atlantic.
29. "Database – PISA 2009". Pisa2009.acer.edu.au. Archived from the original on 22 March 2016. Retrieved 15 April 2016.
30. http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/EdStats/INDprwp08b.pdf ^{[ bare URL PDF ]}
31. Initiatives, Educational (November 2006), "Student Learning in the Metros" (PDF), Educational Initiatives
32. Vishnoi, Anubhuti (7 January 2012), "Poor PISA ranks: HRD seeks reason", The Indian Express
33. Masani, Zareer (27 February 2008). "India still Asia's reluctant tiger". BBC News.
34. Cf. http://www.provincia.bz.it/bildung-sprache/deutschsprachige-schule/mitteilungen.asp?publ_action=300&publ_image_id=469121. Retrieved 11 April 2021.
35. 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».
36. 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.
37. Cf. Dolomiten, 27 January 2005: Mr Hilpold misinformed the press on behalf of the regional government: «South Tyrol was assessed as a nation [Land]. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Cf. the interview in the Austrian daily Tiroler Tageszeitung, 3 November 2008, p. 4.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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/
46. 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/
47. 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).
48. "PISA Mathematics: A Teacher's Guide" (PDF).
49. Loveless, Tom. "International Tests Are Not All the Same". Brookings Institution.
50. quoted in Valerie Strauss, "How poverty affected U.S. PISA scores", The Washington Post, 9 December 2010.
51. "Stratifying PISA scores by poverty rates suggests imitating Finland is not necessarily the way to go for US schools". Simply Statistics. 23 August 2013.
52. "Child poverty statistics: how the UK compares to other countries", The Guardian. The same UNICEF figures were used by Riddile.
53. Highlights From PISA 2009, Table 3.
54. See, Martin Carnoy and Richard Rothstein, "What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?", Economic Policy Institute, 28 January 2013.
55. Valerie Strauss, "U.S. scores on international test lowered by sampling error: report", Washington Post, 15 January 2013.
56. Carnoy and Rothstein, "What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?", Economic Policy Institute, 28 January 2013
57. Schleicher was quoted by Amanda Ripley to this effect in her 2011 book, The Smartest Kids in The World (Simon and Schuster).
58. 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.
59. Carnoy and Rothstein, "What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?", EPI, January 28, 2013.

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
  • 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
  • OECD (2004a): Learning for Tomorrow's World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD, ISBN   978-92-64-00724-6
  • 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
  • OECD (2014): PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems (Volume V)

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.

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