# Programme for International Student Assessment (2000 to 2012)

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

PISA 2012 :
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 2009

PISA 2009 :
OECD members as of the time of the study are in boldface. :
| 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. :
| 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. :
| 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. :
| 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 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.
* 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.