DATA 

POINT

Financial Literacy 

of 15-Year-Olds: 

Results From PISA 2015

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

MAY 2017 NCES 2017-086

In 2015, the Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA) assessed the financial literacy 

of 15-year-old students in the United States and 14 

other education systems around the world. Eight of the 

education systems, including the United States, also 

participated in PISA’s financial literacy assessment of 

2012 and can compare their students’ financial literacy 

achievement across the two timepoints.1

 Students 

were tested on their knowledge and understanding of 

fundamental elements of the financial world, including 

financial concepts, products, and risks, and their ability 

to apply what they know to real-life situations involving 

financial issues and decisions.2

How did U.S. 15-year-olds perform, on 

average, on the PISA financial literacy 

assessment in 2015? Did results differ 

from 2012? 

• The U.S. average in financial literacy was 487 in 

2015, which was not measurably different from 

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD) average of 489. Average scores 

ranged from 566 in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and 

Guangdong, China [B-S-J-G (China)] to 393 in Brazil. 

The U.S. average was lower than the average in six 

education systems, higher than the average in six, 

and not measurably different from the average in two 

education systems (table 1).3

• Between 2012 and 2015, there was no measurable 

change in the U.S. average financial literacy score 

(492 vs. 487). Among the seven other systems that 

participated in 2012 and 2015, the Russian Federation 

and Italy showed significant gains in average scores, 

while Poland, the Slovak Republic, Australia, and 

Spain showed significant declines.

Table 1. Average scores of 15-year-old 

students on the PISA financial 

literacy scale, by education system: 

2012 and 2015

Education system

2015 

average 

score

2015 – 2012 

difference in 

average scores

OECD average 489 -11

B-S-J-G (China) 566 —

Belgium (Flemish Community) 541 #

Canadian provinces 533 —

Russian Federation 512 26*

Netherlands 509 —

Australia 504 -22*

United States 487 -4

Poland 485 -25*

Italy 483 17*

Spain 469 -16*

Lithuania 449 —

Slovak Republic 445 -25*

Chile 432 —

Peru 403 —

Brazil 393 —

U.S. state education systems

Massachusetts 523 —

North Carolina 496 —

Average score is higher than U.S. average score.

Average score is lower than U.S. average score.

— Not available. Education system did not participate in 2012.

# Rounds to zero.

*p<.05. Difference between 2015 and 2012 average scores is 

statistically significant at the .05 level of significance.

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 2015 average score. Scores 

are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. All average scores reported 

as higher or lower than the U.S. average score are different at the .05 

level of statistical significance. The OECD average is the average of the 

national averages of the 10 OECD member countries that participated 

in the financial literacy assessment in 2015, with each education system 

weighted equally. B-S-J-G (China) refers to the four PISA-participating 

China provinces: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Guangdong. Canadian 

provinces refer to the seven provinces that participated in the financial 

literacy assessment: British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, 

Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Prince Edward 

Island. Italics indicate non-OECD countries and education systems. The 

standard errors of the estimates are shown in table FL1 and table FL2 

available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/PISA2015/index.asp.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2012 

and 2015.

PISA is a triennial international assessment of 15-year-old students 

in mathematics literacy, reading literacy, and science literacy, 

as well as other occasional subjects. PISA is coordinated by the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 

an intergovernmental organization of industrialized countries, and 

conducted in the United States by NCES. For questions about 

content or to view this report online, go to http://nces.ed.gov/

surveys/pisa.
Financial Literacy of 15-Year-Olds: Results From PISA 2015

What were the percentages of top 

and low performers on the PISA 

financial literacy assessment in 2015?

• The percentage of U.S. top-performing 15-year-old 

students (those scoring at proficiency level 5) in 

financial literacy was 10 percent. The percentage 

at level 5 ranged from 33 percent in B-S-J-G (China) 

to 1 percent in Peru. The U.S. percentage was lower 

than the OECD average and five education systems 

and higher than eight. The U.S. percentage did not 

differ significantly from that of the Russian Federation 

(figure 1). 

• The percentage of low-performing U.S. 15-year-old 

students scoring below level 2, which is considered 

below a baseline level of proficiency by the OECD, 

was 22 percent. The percentage ranged from 9 percent 

in B-S-J-G (China) to 53 percent in Brazil. The U.S. 

percentage of low performers in 2015 was higher than 

four education systems and lower than five. The U.S. 

percentage did not differ significantly from that of the 

Netherlands, Australia, Poland, Italy, Spain, and the 

OECD average.

Figure 1. Percentage of 15-year-old students 

performing at PISA financial 

literacy proficiency level below 

level 2 and at level 5, by education 

system: 2015

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Education system Below level 2 Level 5

OECD average 22 12*

B-S-J-G (China) 9* 33*

Belgium (Flemish Community) 12* 24*

Canadian provinces 13* 22*

Netherlands 19 17*

Australia 20 15*

Russian Federation 11* 11

United States 22 10

Poland 20 8*

Italy 20 6*

Slovak Republic 35* 6*

Spain 25 6*

Lithuania 32* 4*

Chile 38* 3*

Brazil 53* 3*

Peru 48* 1*

U.S. state education systems

Massachusetts 12* 16*

North Carolina 19 11

 Below level 2 in 2015 Level 5 in 2015

*p<.05. Significantly different from U.S. percentage at the .05 level of 

statistical significance. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 2015 percentages of 

15-year-olds at level 5. The OECD average (FL) shown here is 

the average of the national percentages of the 10 OECD member 

countries that participated in the financial literacy assessment, with 

each education system weighted equally. B-S-J-G (China) refers 

to the four PISA-participating China provinces: Beijing, Shanghai, 

Jiangsu, and Guangdong. Italics indicate non-OECD countries and 

education systems. Canadian provinces refer to the seven provinces 

that participated in the financial literacy assessment: British Columbia, 

Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, 

Ontario, and Prince Edward Island. Results for Massachusetts and 

North Carolina are for public school students only. The score point 

ranges for the proficiency levels are shown in exhibit 1 and the

standard errors of the estimates are shown in table FL3b available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/PISA2015/index.asp. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2015.

Endnotes

1 In 2015, all 35 OECD member countries and 35 other education 

systems participated in PISA, for a total of 70 education systems. 

Fifteen of the 70 chose to also administer the financial literacy 

assessment. In addition, Massachusetts and North Carolina 

participated in PISA 2015 separately from the nation. 

2 More information about the PISA financial literacy assessment 

is available at http://www.pisa.oecd.org.

3 Standard errors for the estimates are available at 

https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2015/index.asp.

This NCES Data Point presents information on education topics of 

current interest. It was authored by Patrick Gonzales of NCES and 

Anindita Sen of the American Institutes for Research. Estimates 

based on samples are subject to sampling variability, and apparent 

differences may not be statistically significant. All noted differences 

are statistically significant at the .05 level. In the design, conduct, 

and data processing of National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) surveys, efforts are made to minimize the effects of 

nonsampling errors, such as item nonresponse, measurement error, 

data processing error, or other systematic error.