U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2006-073

U.S. Student and 

Adult Performance 

on International 

Assessments of 

Educational 

Achievement

Findings from

The Condition of Education 2006
This page intentionally left blank.
U.S. Student and

Adult Performance

on International 

Assessments of

Educational 

Achievement

Findings from

The Condition of Education 2006

June 2006

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2006-073

Mariann Lemke

Patrick Gonzales

National Center for

Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal en ti ty for collect ing, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other 

nations. It fulfi lls a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and 

complete statistics on the condition of ed u ca tion in the United States; conduct and publish 

reports and specialized anal y ses of the meaning and signifi cance of such statistics; assist state 

and local ed u ca tion agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on 

ed u ca tion activities in other countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consis tent, reliable, com plete, and accurate indicators of education sta tus and trends; and report 

timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. De part ment of Education, the Congress, the 

states, other education policymakers, prac ti tio ners, data users, and the general public. Unless 

specifi cally noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in lan guage that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success 

in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or sug ges tions about 

this or any other U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Ed u ca tion Statistics 

product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

 National Center for Education Statistics

 Institute of Education Sciences

 U.S. Department of Education

 1990 K Street, NW

 Washington, DC 20006–5651

June 2006

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Suggested Citation

Lemke, M., and Gonzales, P. (2006). U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International 

Assessments of Educational Achievement: Findings from The Condition of Education 2006

(NCES 2006-073). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics.

For ordering information on this report, write to

 U.S. Department of Education

 ED Pubs

 P.O. Box 1398

 Jessup, MD 20794–1398

call toll free 1–877–4ED–PUBS; or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

Content Contact

Michael Planty

(202) 502–7312

michael.planty@ed.gov
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page iii

Preface

The Condition of Education summarizes important developments and trends in 

education using the latest available data. The report, which is required by law, is 

an indicator report intended for a general audience of readers who are interested 

in education. The indicators represent a consensus of professional judgment on 

the most signifi cant national measures of the condition and progress of education for which accurate data are available. The 2006 print edition includes 50 

indicators in fi ve main areas: (1) enrollment trends and student characteristics 

at all levels of the education system from early childhood education to graduate 

and fi rst-professional programs; (2) student achievement and the longer term, 

enduring effects of education; (3) student effort and rates of progress through 

the educational system among different population groups; (4) the contexts of 

elementary and secondary education in terms of courses taken, teacher characteristics, and other factors; and (5) the contexts of postsecondary education.

The 2006 edition also includes a special analysis that presents key fi ndings of 

recent international assessments that examine the performance of U.S. students 

in reading, mathematics, and science and the literacy of adults compared with 

the performance of their peers in other countries. To make the special analysis 

available to audiences interested in U.S. performance on international assessments 

of educational achievement, the special analysis is reprinted here as a separate 

volume. Technical notes about the data sources, methodology, and standard errors are included at the end of this booklet.

Special analyses included in the 2000–06 editions of The Condition of Education are available both as booklets and in the full print volumes. They are also 

available on the NCES Condition of Education website (http://nces.ed.gov/

programs/coe).
This page intentionally left blank.
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 1

Introduction

As part of its congressional mandate, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is required to report on the state of education in the United States 

and other countries (Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002). To carry out this 

mission, NCES engages in a number of activities designed to gather information 

and produce indicators on how the performance of U.S. students, teachers, and 

schools compares with that of their counterparts in other countries. NCES and 

other offi ces within the U.S. Department of Education work with foreign ministries of education and international organizations, such as the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Association 

for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), and the United Nations 

Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to plan, develop, 

and implement reliable and meaningful measures across countries.

The United States participates in several international assessments designed to 

provide comparable information about achievement in various subject areas. 

These assessments offer an opportunity to compare the performance of U.S. students and adults with that of their peers in other countries. They also provide an 

opportunity to observe characteristics associated with high and low achievement 

across countries and to posit questions about policies and practices that could 

be applied in U.S. schools to improve student learning. 

 The United States has participated in developing and conducting cross-national 

assessments since the 1960s. Since the fi rst comparative assessments were given, the 

number and scope of international assessments have grown. The implementation 

of technical standards and increased monitoring, along with the expertise that the 

international community has contributed to assessment design, has improved the 

quality of data over time. For complete details on the methods instituted to ensure 

U.S. Student and Adult Performance 

on International Assessments of 

Educational Achievement
Page 2 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

data quality and comparability, see Adams (2005); Martin, Mullis, and Chrostowski 

(2004); Martin, Mullis, and Kennedy (2003); and Statistics Canada (2005). 

Currently, the United States participates in four international assessments: the 

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), which assesses reading 

performance in grade 4; the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 

which assesses the reading, mathematics, and science literacy of 15-year-olds;1

 the 

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which assesses 

mathematics and science performance in grades 4 and 8; and the Adult Literacy 

and Lifeskills Survey (ALL), which assesses the adult literacy and numeracy skills 

of 16- to 65-year-olds (table 1). Each international assessment measures one or 

more dimensions of the performance or ability of U.S. students or adults. Combined with data from national assessments,2

 these international assessment data 

provide educators and policymakers with a more complete picture of educational 

achievement in the United States. 

This special analysis will present major fi ndings from each of these assessments. 

The purpose of this special analysis is three-fold: (1) to discuss the similarities and 

differences in the countries participating in the assessments; (2) to report the most 

recent fi ndings of these assessments; and (3) to compare the overall performance 

of students and adults in the United States with their peers in other countries. 

Which Countries Participate?

Countries around the world are invited to participate in each assessment by the 

sponsoring international organization. Because they volunteer to participate, the 

number and range of countries (e.g., developed vs. developing) vary from assessment to assessment. Though TIMSS, PIRLS, and PISA include developed and developing countries, a larger proportion of developing countries have participated 

in TIMSS and PIRLS than in PISA and ALL (table 1). PISA is primarily administered in the member countries of the OECD—an intergovernmental organization 

of 30 industrialized countries seeking to promote trade and economic growth. 

ALL was conducted only among 6 countries in 2003, but additional countries 

collected data in 2005, and more countries plan to participate in future years.

Differences in the combinations of countries that participate in the assessments can 

affect how various measures, such as the international average, are calculated and 

interpreted. For example, because national average scores in developing countries 

tend to be lower than those in developed countries, the international averages 

can vary from administration to administration, depending on which countries 

participate. In TIMSS and PIRLS, the international averages are calculated using 

results from both developing and developed countries while in PISA, they are 

calculated using results only from the OECD-member countries.
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 3

Table 1. Recent international assessments

 Average GDP 

 per capita of Average

 Number participating HDI of

 Year of partici- countries partici-

 Age/grade Subjects admin- pating (in U.S. dollars pating

Study assessed assessed istered countries1 using PPP)2 countries3

Progress in Inter- 4th grade Reading 2001 35 $13,229 0.865

national Reading 2006

Literacy Study

(PIRLS)

Trends in Inter- 4th grade Mathematics 1995 25 at $15,911 0.863 

national Mathe- 8th grade4

 Science 1999 grade 4; (grade 4); (grade 4);

matics and Science 2003 45 at $10,808 0.820 

Study (TIMSS) 2007 grade 8 (grade 8) (grade 8)

Program for 15-year-olds Reading literacy 2000 39 $26,172 0.917

International Mathematics 2003

Student Assess- literacy 2006

ment (PISA) Science literacy

Adult Literacy 16- to Literacy 2003 6 $33,598 0.947

and Lifeskills 65-year-olds Numeracy

Survey (ALL)

1

 Number of participating countries based on the most recently completed year of the assessment.

2

 Average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is based on the averages of the participating countries in 2003 that completed all necessary 

steps to appear in the international reports. GDP per capita is taken from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Human Development Report 2005. Figures are converted using purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion factors that take into account differences in the 

relative prices of goods and services—particularly non-tradables—and therefore provide a better overall measure of the real value of output 

produced by an economy compared to other economies. PPP GDP is measured in current international dollars which, in principle, have the 

same purchasing power as a dollar spent on gross national index in the U.S. economy. Average GDP per capita for PISA includes Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)-member nations only. Average GDP per capita for TIMSS, PIRLS, and ALL includes all nations for which data were available. GDP per capita data were unavailable for Bermuda, Chinese Taipei, Lichtenstein, Macao-China, Palestinian 

National Authority, and Serbia and are thus not included in the averages.

3

 Average Human Development Index (HDI) is based on the HDI of particpating countries in 2003 and includes only those countries that 

completed all necessary steps to appear in the international reports. The HDI is a composite index that takes into account three dimensions of 

human development: life expectancy; knowledge; and standard of living. HDI fi gures are taken from the UNDP Human Development Report 2005. 

HDI scores range from 0 (lowest) to 1 (highest). Average HDI for PISA includes OECD-member nations only. Average HDI for TIMSS, PIRLS, and 

ALL includes all nations for which data were available. HDI fi gures were unavailable for Bermuda, Chinese Taipei, Lichtenstein, Macao-China, 

and Serbia and are thus not included in the averages.

4

 Fourth-graders were only assessed in 1995 and 2003. 

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 

2001; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2003; Statistics Canada and Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD), Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL), 2003; OECD, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2003; and 

United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Human Development Report 2005, previously unpublished tabulation (October 2005).
Page 4 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

How Comparable Are the Schools and Students That Participate?

One challenge in comparing assessment data from countries around the world is 

determining the extent that variations in the characteristics of student and adult 

populations relate to achievement scores. For example, restrictions in attrition 

rates as students move through the educational system, the economic and social 

status of students and their families, and parental levels of education may each 

affect the comparability of fi ndings both within and across assessments. In developing international assessments, the challenge of making student populations 

comparable is generally dealt with in two ways. 

First, countries that participate in international assessments such as TIMSS, PIRLS, 

ALL, and PISA are required to select national probability samples from all students or adults in a particular grade or of a particular age. Exclusions are strictly 

limited, must be clearly documented, and are reported along with participation 

rates at each level of sampling. Countries with exclusion rates that are above 

established levels or with samples that are not representative of the population 

being assessed run the risk of being eliminated from reports. 

Second, in the school-based assessments, the grades or ages selected for assessment are 

chosen to maximize the likelihood of youth being enrolled in school; for example, PISA 

samples are drawn from the population of 15-year-old students enrolled in school. 

In 2003, the most recent year for which data are available, the percentage of the 

population ages 5–14 enrolled in school was 90 percent or higher in most developed 

countries, including the United States, and 80 percent or higher in most developing 

countries that participated in international assessments (OECD 2004a, table C1.2). 

The percentage of the U.S. population ages 15–19 enrolled in public or private school 

was 75 percent, which is comparable to or below that of most other industrialized 

countries. Comparisons of graduation rates from upper secondary school (high school 

in the United States) paint a similar picture: the U.S. graduation rate (73 percent) is 

comparable to or below that of most industrialized countries, where 80 percent or 

more of students fi nish upper secondary school (OECD 2004a, table A2.1).

Further differences among countries in terms of their student population characteristics, especially those found to be signifi cantly related to achievement, can also 

be evaluated and explained in comparative analyses. Research has established that 

students’ economic and social characteristics, such as their immigrant status and 

family income, are associated with academic achievement (Coleman et al. 1966; 

Entwisle and Alexander 1993; Shavit and Blossfi eld 1993). Moreover, research 

has shown that these factors are often interrelated, further complicating the 

picture (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Schmid 2001). For example, minority 

status, family income, language ability, and family structure are associated with 

students’ achievement in the United States (Coleman et al. 1966; Jencks et al. 

1979; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Schmid 2001), and such relationships are 

also found in many other countries (Buchmann 2002). The uneven distribution 
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 5

of students’ economic and social factors across countries, as well as the potential 

cross-national variation in the relationship between student achievement and these 

factors, may affect the outcomes of cross-national comparisons. 

Recent comparisons of PISA 2003 data have explored how variations in student 

population characteristics across countries may affect the reported outcomes of 

international studies. For example, it is true that some characteristics of the U.S. 

student population are different from those of student populations in countries 

like Japan and Korea, where there are few foreign-born students; however, student 

populations in other countries are often not measurably different from the U.S. 

student population in terms of the distribution of salient social and economic factors (fi gures 1 and 2; Hampden-Thompson and Johnston 2006). For example, 48 

percent of 15-year-old students in the United States reported having at least one 

parent who had a college degree or a postsecondary vocational qualifi cation (fi gure 

1). When the United States was compared to the other 19 countries in this study, 

11 countries were found to have a smaller percentage of students with postsecondary-educated parents when compared with the United States. Seven countries had 

a higher percentage of 15-year-old students who reported that at least one of their 

parents was educated to the postsecondary level (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden). Also, the data show that 9 percent of U.S. 

15-year-olds did not speak the language of the test at home (i.e., English; fi gure 2). 

Of the 19 other countries, 6 had a greater percentage of 15-year-olds who did not 

speak the language of the test at home, and 8 countries had a lower percentage. 

Cross-national comparisons of student populations and their social and economic 

contexts show that the United States shares many of the same educational challenges as other countries. For example, while the strength of the association 

may vary, many studies report a fairly consistent relationship between lower 

socioeconomic status and lower student achievement (Buchmann 2002). The 

cross-national comparisons of achievement displayed in the sections that follow 

have not been adjusted for socioeconomic or other factors.

How Do U.S. Students and Adults Compare With Their Peers in Other 

Countries?

Results for U.S. students and adults on international assessments vary by subject, 

grade or age, and assessment. Although it would be desirable, it is not possible to 

directly compare the international assessment scores from the various studies because of differences in the countries participating, the purpose of the assessments, 

the items used, and the target populations. Without making direct comparisons 

between studies, the following section presents highlights of the key fi ndings of 

several recent international studies that looked at students’ and adults’ achievement in reading, mathematics, and science.
Page 6 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

Figure 1. Percentage of 15-year-olds whose parents had a postsecondary education, had high 

occupational status, and had more than 200 books in the home, by country: 2003

1 Parents’ occupation is reported by the student and coded to the International Standard Classifi cation of Occupations (ISCO-88) and then 

grouped into major occupational groups. For further information, see Ganzeboom et al. (1992).

NOTE: The international average is the weighted mean of the data values for the 20 countries included in the analysis. Parent education, parent 

occupational status, and number of books in the home are based on students’ reports. If either of a student’s parents completed a bachelor’s, 

master’s, or postgraduate degree (corresponding to the International Standard Classifi cation of Education (ISCED) levels 5A, 5B, or 6), the student 

was considered as having postsecondary-educated parents. Parent occupational status is based on either of the student’s parents’ occupation 

(whichever is higher), and the variable was transformed into quarters with “high” occupational status representing the upper quarter. The 

response rate in New Zealand for parent occupational status was below 85 percent.

SOURCE: Hampden-Thompson, G., and Johnston, J.S. (2006). Variation in the Relationship Between Nonschool Factors and Student Achievement 

on International Assessments (NCES 2006-014), table 1. Data from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program 

for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2003.

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

United States

Switzerland

Sweden

Spain

Portugal

Norway

New Zealand

Netherlands

Italy

Ireland

Iceland

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Denmark

Canada

Belgium

Austria

Australia

International average

48

41

61

38

26

63

45

48

34

40

40

42

41

37

67

59

64

57

43

54

46

33

22

27

14

14

34

29

29

18

21

37

21

22

22

27

21

29

27

18

31

27

22

24

36

27

16

39

30

25

21

21

38

18

29

21

23

27

29

23

23

35

24

Country

Postsecondary

educated parents High parents’ occupation1

Percent

More than 200

books in the home
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 7

NOTE: The international average is the weighted mean of the data values for the 20 countries included in the analysis. Language spoken at 

home, immigrant status, and family structure are based on students’ reports. “Test-language” students reported speaking the language in 

which the test was administered always or most of the time at home while “non-test-language” students reported using another language 

always or most of the time at home. Students from a “two-parent family” reported living with both their mother and father. The category 

“non-two-parent family” encompasses all other responses.

SOURCE: Hampden-Thompson, G., and Johnston, J.S. (2006). Variation in the Relationship Between Nonschool Factors and Student Achievement 

on International Assessments (NCES 2006-014), table 1. Data from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program 

for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2003.

Figure 2. Percentage of 15-year-olds who spoke a non-test language, were foreign born, and were 

from non-two-parent families, by country: 2003

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

United States

Switzerland

Sweden

Spain

Portugal

Norway

New Zealand

Netherlands

Italy

Ireland

Iceland

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Denmark

Canada

Belgium

Austria

Australia

International average

9

12

8

16

1

5

9

15

19

2

2

3

8

7

3

4

13

16

9

9

10

9

12

7

4

4

5

15

8

4

4

3

8

16

5

3

5

21

8

10

13

10

45

26

34

19

23

36

35

21

20

20

29

29

25

30

30

34

30

28

24

31

34

Country Non-test primary language Foreign born

Percent

Non-two-parent family
Page 8 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

Reading

Three international assessments measure aspects of reading skills. The Progress 

in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assesses 4th-grade reading skills; 

the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) focuses on the ability 

of 15-year-olds to apply their reading skills to a wide variety of materials within 

a real-life context; and the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL) assesses 

the literacy skills of adults ages 16–65.

PIRLS

Administered in 35 countries in 2001, PIRLS defi nes reading literacy as 

The ability to understand and use those written language forms required 

by society and/or valued by the individual. Young readers can construct 

meaning from a variety of texts. They read to learn, to participate in communities of readers in school and everyday life, and for enjoyment. (Mullis 

et al. 2004a, p. 3).

To measure the reading literacy skills and abilities of 4th-graders, PIRLS used 

a combination of literary texts—passages drawn from children’s books—and 

informational texts—passages providing information on people, places, and 

things. Students were asked to demonstrate skills and abilities such as retrieving 

specifi c information, making inferences, interpreting and integrating ideas and 

information, and examining and evaluating content and language. 

 U.S. 4th-graders had higher average reading literacy scores 

than the international average and higher scores than students in 23 of the 34 other participating countries in 2001.

The results from PIRLS indicate that U.S. 4th-graders performed as well as or 

better than most of their international peers in the other 34 participating countries (table 2). Specifi cally, U.S. 4th-graders performed above the international 

average, and, on average, they outperformed students in two-thirds of the other 

participating countries. The performance of students in about one-quarter of the 

participating countries was not measurably different from that of U.S. students. 

Students in three countries (Sweden, the Netherlands, and England) outperformed 

U.S. students, on average. The average score of U.S. 4th-graders was not measurably different from the average student scores in other industrialized countries 

such as Canada (Ontario and Quebec), Italy, and Germany. U.S. 4th-graders 

outscored their peers in some industrialized countries, such as New Zealand, 

Scotland, France, and Norway, as well as in a number of developing countries. 

In addition to overall reading scores, PIRLS provides subscale scores for specifi c 

reading skills: reading for literary experience and reading to acquire and use information. On average, U.S. 4th-graders performed as well as or better than their peers 
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 9

in most countries in both reading subscales (Ogle et al. 2003). Students in only one 

country, Sweden, outperformed U.S. students in reading for literacy experience; 

students in fi ve countries (Sweden, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Latvia, and England) 

outperformed U.S. students in reading to acquire and use information. 

As with all international assessments in which the United States participates, 

PIRLS data can be analyzed to provide information on the achievement of student 

Country Average score

 International average 500

Sweden 561

Netherlands1 554

England1, 2 553

Bulgaria 550

Latvia 545

Canada (O,Q)3, 4 544

Lithuania3 543

Hungary 543

United States1 542

Italy 541

Germany 539

Czech Republic 537

New Zealand 529

Scotland1 528

Singapore 528

Russian Federation2 528

Hong Kong SAR5 528

France 525

Greece2 524

Slovak Republic 518

Iceland 512

Romania 512

Israel2 509

Slovenia 502

Norway 499

Cyprus 494

Moldova 492

Turkey 449

Macedonia 442

Colombia 422

Argentina 420

Iran 414

Kuwait 396

Morocco6

 350

Belize 327

Table 2. Average PIRLS reading literacy scores of 4th-graders, by country: 2001 

 Average is higher than the U.S. average.

 Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average.

 Average is lower than the U.S. average.

1

 Met international guidelines for sample participation rates only 

after replacement schools were included.

2

 National defi ned population covers less than 95 percent of national 

desired population.

3

 National desired population does not cover all of international 

desired population.

4

 Canada is represented by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec 

(O, Q) only. 

5

 Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the 

People’s Republic of China.

6

 Nearly satisfi ed guidelines for sample participation rates after 

replacement schools were included.

NOTE: Participants were scored on a 1,000-point scale. The international standard deviation is 100 points. The test for signifi cance 

between the U.S. average and the international average was 

adjusted to account for the contribution of the U.S. average to the 

international average. 

SOURCE: Ogle, L.T., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., Roey, 

S., and Williams, T. (2003). International Comparisons in FourthGrade Reading Literacy: Findings from the Progress in International 

Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) of 2001 (NCES 2003-073), fi gure 

3. Data from International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy 

Study (PIRLS), 2001.
Page 10 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

subpopulations. For example, 19 percent of U.S. students performed among the 

top 10 percent of all 4th-graders across the 35 countries that participated in PIRLS 

in 2001, a percentage exceeded only in England (Ogle et al. 2003). Among U.S. 

4th-graders, a larger percentage of White students performed in the top 10 percent 

of all students than their Black or Hispanic peers. In all 35 countries, including 

the United States, girls outperformed boys in reading. Girls in Sweden, England, 

the Netherlands, and Bulgaria outperformed U.S. girls in reading, on average, 

while boys in the Netherlands and Sweden outperformed U.S. boys. 

PIRLS will be repeated in 2006, providing more information about the progress 

of U.S. students in reading relative to other countries. Results of the PIRLS 2001 

assessment can be found in Ogle et al. (2003; available at http://nces.ed.gov/

pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003073) and Mullis et al. (2003; available at 

http://isc.bc.edu/pirls2001i/PIRLS2001_Pubs_IR.html). 

PISA

PISA measured the reading literacy of 15-year-olds in 2000. In this study, reading 

literacy was defi ned as “understanding, using, and refl ecting on written texts in 

order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to 

participate in society” (OECD 1999, p. 20). PISA measured the extent to which 

students could apply different reading processes (retrieving information, interpreting text, and refl ecting on text) to a range of reading materials they were likely 

to encounter as young adults, such as government forms, newspaper articles, 

manuals, books, and magazines. 

 U.S. 15-year-olds scored at the OECD average in reading 

literacy in 2000.

PISA 2000 results showed that U.S. 15-year-olds performed as well as or better 

than most of their peers in the 30 other participating countries (table 3). On 

average, students in Finland, Canada, and New Zealand outperformed U.S. 

students, but the U.S. average scores were not signifi cantly different from those 

in most other industrialized countries as well as the OECD average.3

 PISA also 

provided subscale scores based on processes used when reading a text: retrieving information from text; interpreting texts; and refl ecting on texts to relate to 

other experiences, knowledge, or ideas. U.S. 15-year-olds scored at the OECD 

average on all three reading processes measured. However, students in fi ve countries outperformed U.S. students on a measure of retrieving information, and 

students in four countries outperformed U.S. students on a measure of refl ecting 

on texts. On a measure of interpreting texts, students in two countries—Finland 

and Canada—outperformed U.S. 15-year-olds (Lemke et al. 2001).

Thirteen percent of U.S. students performed among the top 10 percent of all 15-

year-olds in the OECD-member countries that participated in PISA 2000 (Lemke 
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 11

et al. 2001), and about one-third of U.S. students were found to read at the two 

highest levels of performance. Similar to the results in the PIRLS 2001 study, girls 

outperformed boys in reading literacy in the United States and all other participating PISA countries (Lemke et al. 2001). More information on the performance of 

other student population groups can be found in Lemke et al. (2001; available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002115) and OECD (2001; 

available at https://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/53/33691596.pdf).

ALL

In 2003, the United States participated in ALL along with fi ve other countries. 

The study assessed the literacy and numeracy skills of adults ages 16–65 through 

a written test administered in respondents’ homes. In this study, literacy was 

Country Average score

 OECD average 500

OECD countries

 Finland 546

 Canada 534

 New Zealand 529

 Australia 528

 Ireland 527

 Korea, Republic of 525

 United Kingdom 523

 Japan 522

 Sweden 516

 Austria 507

 Belgium 507

 Iceland 507

 Norway 505

 France 505

 United States 504

 Denmark 497

 Switzerland 494

 Spain 493

 Czech Republic 492

 Italy 487

 Germany 484

 Hungary 480

 Poland 479

 Greece 474

 Portugal 470

 Luxembourg 441

 Mexico 422

Table 3. Average PISA reading literacy scores of 15-year-olds, by country: 2000

Country Average score

Non-OECD countries

 Liechtenstein 483

 Russian Federation 462

 Latvia 458

 Brazil 396

 Average is higher than the U.S. average.

 Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average.

 Average is lower than the U.S. average.

NOTE: The test for signifi cance between the United States and the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 

average was adjusted to account for the contribution of the U.S. 

average to the OECD average. Because PISA is principally an OECD 

study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately 

from those for the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD 

average. Due to low response rates, data for the Netherlands are 

not included. Participants were scored on a 1,000-point scale. The 

international standard deviation is 100 points.

SOURCE: Lemke, M., Calsyn, C., Lippman, L., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., 

Liu, Y.Y., Roey, S., Williams, T., Kruger, T., and Bairu, G. (2001). Outcomes 

of Learning: Results From the 2000 Program for International Student 

Assessment of 15-Year-Olds in Reading, Mathematics, and Science 

Literacy (NCES 2002-115), fi gure 3. Data from Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for 

International Student Assessment (PISA), 2000.
Page 12 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

defi ned as the knowledge and skills needed by adults, in life and at work, to use 

information from various texts (e.g., news stories, editorials, manuals, brochures) 

in various formats (e.g., texts, maps, tables, charts, forms, time tables) (Statistics 

Canada and OECD 2005). The ALL test questions were developed to assess the 

respondent’s ability to retrieve, compare, integrate, and synthesize information 

from texts and to make inferences, among other skills. 

 U.S. adults had lower literacy skills, on average, than 

adults in Norway, Bermuda, Switzerland, and Canada in 

2003 and had higher literacy skills than adults in Italy.

Results from ALL showed that U.S. adults outperformed adults in Italy in 2003, 

but were outperformed by adults in Norway, Bermuda, Switzerland, and Canada 

(table 4). Adults in Bermuda, Norway, and Canada had higher literacy scores 

than U.S. adults at both the high and low ends of the score distribution (Lemke 

et al. 2005). The highest performers (the top 10 percent of adults) had literacy 

scores of 353 or higher in Bermuda, 348 or higher in Norway, and 344 or higher 

in Canada, compared with 333 or higher in the United States. The lowest performers (those in the bottom 10 percent) in Bermuda had literacy scores of 213 

or lower, 233 or lower in Norway, and 209 or lower in Canada, compared with 

201 or lower in the United States. The lowest performers in Switzerland also 

outperformed their U.S. counterparts in literacy, scoring 216 or lower.

In contrast to the results in PIRLS and PISA, there was no measurable difference in the literacy performance of men and women in the United States and in 

Bermuda, Canada, and Norway (Lemke et al. 2005). In Italy and Switzerland, 

men outperformed women. In the United States, White adults outscored Black 

and Hispanic adults, on average, on literacy tasks. 

More countries will have collected data by 2005, allowing for additional comparisons of adult skills and knowledge. Detailed information on the results from 

ALL 2003 can be found in Statistics Canada and OECD (2005; available at http://

www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-603-XIE/2005001/pdf.htm).

Country Average score

Norway 293

Bermuda 285

Switzerland 274

Canada 281

United States 269

Italy 228

 Average is higher than the U.S. average.

 Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average.

 Average is lower than the U.S. average.

Table 4. Average ALL literacy scores of adults ages 16–65, by country: 2003

NOTE: Participants were scored on a 500-point scale.

SOURCE: Lemke, M., Miller, D., Johnston, J., Krenzke, T., Alvarez-Rojas, 

L., Kastberg, D., and Jocelyn, L. (2005). Highlights From the 2003 International Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL)—(Revised) (NCES 

2005-117rev), table 1. Data from Statistics Canada and Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Adult Literacy 

and Lifeskills Survey (ALL), 2003.
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 13

Mathematics

Three international assessments measure aspects of mathematical skills. The Trends 

in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which assesses 4th- and 

8th-grade mathematics knowledge and skills; the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which focuses on mathematics literacy, or the ability of 

15-year-olds to apply mathematics to a wide variety of materials within a real-life 

context; and the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL), which measures the 

numeracy skills of adults ages 16–65.

TIMSS

TIMSS, which was administered in grades 4 and 8 in 1995 and 2003 and in 

grade 8 in 1999, is designed to measure the achievement of 4th- and 8th-graders 

in mathematics and science. The study is closely linked to the curricula of the 

participating countries, providing an indication of the degree to which students 

have learned the concepts of mathematics that they have studied in school. Some 

46 countries participated in TIMSS in 2003, at either the 4th- or 8th-grade level, 

or both.

 From 1995 to 2003, U.S. 4th-graders showed no measurable change in their mathematics performance, while the 

performance of 8th-graders improved.

In mathematics, students in some countries (notably several Asian countries, 

such as Japan and Hong Kong, but also including the Netherlands and Belgium) 

consistently outperformed U.S. students, on average, regardless of the year of assessment, measure, grade, or age tested (Gonzales et al. 2004). Overall, however, 

the current picture of U.S. performance, as measured by TIMSS, is mixed at the 

4th- and 8th-grade levels. 

When comparing the United States with the other 24 countries participating at 

grade 4 in 2003, U.S. 4th-graders performed better, on average, than their peers 

in 13 countries but worse than their peers in 11 countries (table 5). TIMSS also 

provided scores for fi ve mathematics content areas at grade 4: number, patterns 

and relationships, measurement, geometry, and data. U.S. 4th-graders performed 

above the international average in four of the fi ve content areas in 2003 (all but 

measurement); they performed best in data and least well in measurement (Mullis et al. 2004b).

Comparing results from 1995 and 2003 suggests that while the performance of 

U.S. students was stable during this period, it did not keep pace with improved 

scores among students in several other countries (Gonzales et al. 2004). That is, 

of the other 14 countries participating in both 1995 and 2003, 4th-graders in 

more countries outperformed their U.S. peers in 2003 than in 1995, on average. 
Page 14 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

Grade 4

Country Average score

 International average 495

Singapore 594

Hong Kong SAR1, 2 575

Japan 565

Chinese Taipei 564

Belgium-Flemish3

 551

Netherlands2

 540

Latvia 536

Lithuania4

 534

Russian Federation3

 532

England2

 531

Hungary3

 529

United States2 518

Cyprus 510

Moldova, Republic of 504

Italy 503

Australia2

 499

New Zealand 493

Scotland2

 490

Slovenia 479

Armenia 456

Norway 451

Iran, Islamic Republic of3

 389

Philippines 358

Morocco 347

Tunisia 339

1

 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s 

Republic of China.

2

 Met international guidelines for participation rates only after 

replacement schools were included.

3

 National defi ned population covers less than 95 percent of national 

desired population.

4

 National desired population does not cover all of the international 

desired population.

5

 The international average reported here differs from that reported 

in Mullis et al. (2004) due to the deletion of England. In Mullis et al., 

the reported international average is 467.

6

 Nearly satisfi ed guidelines for sample participation rates after 

replacement schools were included.

NOTE: The test for signifi cance between the United States and the 

international average was adjusted to account for the U.S. contribution to the international average. Countries were required to sample 

students in the upper of the two grades that contained the largest 

number of 9-year-olds and 13-year-olds. In the United States and 

most countries, this corresponds to grades 4 and 8, respectively. 

Participants were scored on a 1,000-point scale. The international 

standard deviation is 100 points.

SOURCE: Gonzales, P., Guzman, J.C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, 

L., Kastberg, D., and Williams, T. (2004). Highlights From the Trends in 

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 

2005-005), tables 2 and 3. Data from International Association for the 

Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International 

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2003.

Grade 8

Country Average score

 International average5

 466

Singapore 605

Korea, Republic of 589

Hong Kong SAR1, 2 586

Chinese Taipei 585

Japan 570

Belgium-Flemish 537

Netherlands2

 536

Estonia 531

Hungary3

 529

Malaysia 508

Latvia 508

Russian Federation3

 508

Slovak Republic 508

Australia 505

United States6

 504

Lithuania4

 502

Sweden 499

Scotland2

 498

Israel3

 496

New Zealand 494

Slovenia 493

Italy 484

Armenia 478

Serbia4

 477

Bulgaria 476

Romania 475

Norway 461

Moldova, Republic of 460

Cyprus 459

Macedonia, Republic of3

 435

Lebanon 433

Jordan 424

Iran, Islamic Republic of3

 411

Indonesia4

 411

Tunisia 410

Egypt 406

Bahrain 401

Palestinian National Authority 390

Chile 387

Morocco4, 6 387

Philippines 378

Botswana 366

Saudi Arabia 332

Ghana 276

South Africa 264

 Average is higher than the U.S. average.

 Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average.

 Average is lower than the U.S. average.

Table 5. Average TIMSS mathematics scores of 4th- and 8th-graders, by country: 2003
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 15

Students in seven countries (Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, 

Latvia, England, and Hungary) outscored U.S. students in 2003, while students 

in four countries (Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands) outscored 

U.S. students in 1995.

In grade 8, U.S. students showed gains in their mathematics skills and abilities. 

As mentioned above, TIMSS assessed 8th-graders in mathematics in 1995, 1999, 

and 2003. In comparison to the other 44 countries that assessed 8th-graders in 

2003, U.S. 8th-graders outperformed their peers in 25 countries, on average, and 

were outperformed by students in 9 countries (table 5; Gonzales et al. 2004). U.S. 

8th-graders had higher average scores in 2003 than in 1995, with the increase 

occurring primarily between 1995 and 1999. Moreover, the relative standing of 

U.S. 8th-graders was higher in 2003 than in 1995 in relation to students in the 

21 other countries participating in TIMSS in both years. That is, of the 21 other 

countries participating in both 1995 and 2003, U.S. 8th-graders were outscored 

by their international peers, on average, in fewer countries in 2003 than in 1995 

(12 countries in 1995 vs. 7 countries in 2003). In addition, TIMSS provided 

achievement results in fi ve mathematics content areas: number, algebra, measurement, geometry, and data. U.S. 8th-graders improved their performance in two 

of these content areas (algebra and data) between 1999 and 2003. 

TIMSS 2003 also examined the mathematics performance of 4th- and 8th-graders 

by achievement level, sex, and race/ethnicity. At both grades, 7 percent of U.S. 

students performed at the highest international benchmark (called “advanced”) 

in 2003, percentages that were not measurably different from the international 

averages (Mullis et al. 2004b). In the United States, boys outperformed girls 

in mathematics at both grades 4 and 8. The gap in mathematics achievement 

scores between White and Black 4th- and 8th-graders narrowed between 1995 

and 2003 (Gonzales et al. 2004). More detailed results for TIMSS 2003 can 

be found in Gonzales et al. (2004; available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005005) and Mullis et al. (2004b; available at http://

isc.bc.edu/timss2003i/mathD.html). 

PISA

While the primary emphasis of PISA in 2000 was on reading literacy, in 2003, 

the assessment turned its focus to mathematics literacy of 15-year-olds, with 39 

countries participating. PISA uses the term mathematics literacy to indicate its 

broader focus on students’ ability to apply their mathematical knowledge and 

skills to a range of situations they are likely to encounter in their everyday lives. 

Thus, unlike TIMSS, PISA does not focus exclusively on outcomes that can be 

directly linked to curricula, but instead emphasizes larger ideas such as space and 

shape or uncertainty in mathematics. PISA complements information obtained 

from studies such as TIMSS because it addresses whether students can apply 

what they have learned, both in and out of school. 
Page 16 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

 U.S. 15-year-olds had lower average mathematics literacy scores than the OECD average and lower scores 

than their peers in 20 of the other 28 OECD countries 

participating in 2003. 

The PISA 2003 results suggest that when applying mathematical skills, U.S. 15-

year-olds performed worse, on average, than many of their international peers 

(table 6). For this age group, the mathematics literacy performance of U.S. students was lower than the average student performance for the majority of the 28 

other OECD-member countries, and below the OECD average.4

 In addition to 

overall mathematics literacy scores, PISA reports on performance by four broad 

content areas connected to overarching ideas in mathematics: space and shape, 

Country Average score

 OECD average 500

OECD countries

 Finland 544

 Korea, Republic of 542

 Netherlands 538

 Japan 534

 Canada 532

 Belgium 529

 Switzerland 527

 Australia 524

 New Zealand 523

 Czech Republic 516

 Iceland 515

 Denmark 514

 France 511

 Sweden 509

 Austria 506

 Germany 503

 Ireland 503

 Slovak Republic 498

 Norway 495

 Luxembourg 493

 Poland 490

 Hungary 490

 Spain 485

 United States 483

 Portugal 466

 Italy 466

 Greece 445

 Turkey 423

 Mexico 385

Table 6. Average PISA mathematics literacy scores of 15-year-olds, by country: 2003

Country Average score

Non-OECD countries

 Hong Kong-China 550

 Liechtenstein 536

 Macao-China 527

 Latvia 483

 Russian Federation 468

 Serbia and Montenegro 437

 Uruguay 422

 Thailand 417

 Indonesia 360

 Tunisia 359

 Average is higher than the U.S. average.

 Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average.

 Average is lower than the U.S. average.

NOTE: The test for signifi cance between the United States and the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 

average was adjusted to account for the contribution of the U.S. 

average to the OECD average. Because PISA is principally an OECD 

study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately 

from those for the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD 

average. Due to low response rates, data for the United Kingdom 

are not included. Participants were scored on a 1,000 point scale. 

The international standard deviation is 100 points.

SOURCE: Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., Kastberg, D., and Jocelyn, L. (2004). International Outcomes 

of Learning in Mathematics Literacy and Problem Solving: PISA 2003 

Results from the U.S. Perspective (NCES 2005-003), table 2. Data from 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2003.
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 17

change and relationships, quantity, and uncertainty. In each content area, U.S. 

15-year-olds were outperformed, on average, by students in a majority of OECD 

countries and performed below the OECD average (Lemke et al. 2004). Fifteenyear-olds in 23 OECD countries outperformed their U.S. counterparts on the 

quantity measure (which focuses on quantitative reasoning and understanding 

of numerical patterns and measures and includes number sense, estimating, and 

computations) than on the other content areas measured. For the other content 

areas, the number of OECD countries in which students outperformed their U.S. 

counterparts was 16 countries on the uncertainty measure (which focuses on data 

and chance), 18 countries on the change and relationships measure (which focuses 

on the representation of change, including mathematics functions such as linear or 

exponential), and 20 countries on the space and shape measure (which focuses on 

recognizing shapes and patterns, describing and decoding visual information, and 

the relationship between visual representations and real shapes and images).

Further analysis of these data shows that, in 2003, the United States had a greater 

percentage of students than the OECD average at the lowest levels of performance 

in mathematics literacy and the four broad content areas (Lemke et al. 2004). 

Differences in mathematics literacy performance within the United States were apparent by sex and race/ethnicity. U.S. 15-year-old females scored lower in mathematics literacy than their male counterparts, a pattern evidenced in 25 other countries 

(20 OECD and 5 non-OECD countries) as well (Lemke et al. 2004). Among U.S. 

15-year-olds, Black and Hispanic students scored lower in mathematics literacy, on 

average, than their White and Asian counterparts, but Hispanic students outperformed 

their Black peers. More detailed information on the PISA 2003 results can be found 

in Lemke et al. (2004; available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=

2005003) and OECD (2004b; available at http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/

1/60/34002216.pdf).

ALL

The ALL 2003 study included measures of adult numeracy skills, defi ned as 

knowledge and skills required to manage mathematical demands in diverse situations. Unlike mathematics literacy skills, numeracy skills go beyond the ability 

to apply arithmetic skills to include number sense, estimation, measurement, 

and statistics. Adults were asked to complete items that required understanding of arithmetic, proportionality, data reading and interpretation, estimation, 

measurement, recognition of patterns and relationships, and the ability to solve 

simple and multi-step problems. The goal of ALL was to ascertain the degree to 

which the adult population could perform tasks that they would likely encounter 

in everyday life and workplace situations.
Page 18 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

 U.S. adults outperformed adults in Italy in numeracy skills 

in 2003, but were outperformed by adults in Switzerland, 

Norway, Bermuda, and Canada.

Mirroring the ALL 2003 results on literacy skills and knowledge, U.S. adults outperformed Italian adults in numeracy, on average. Adults in Switzerland, Norway, 

Bermuda, and Canada scored better, on average, than their U.S. peers (table 7). 

Besides outperforming U.S. adults on average, adults in the four higher performing 

countries had higher numeracy scores than U.S. adults at both the high and low 

ends of the score distribution (Lemke et al. 2005). The highest performers (the top 

10 percent of adults) had numeracy scores of 352 or higher in Switzerland, 343 

or higher in Norway, 342 or higher in Bermuda, and 341 or higher in Canada, 

compared with 333 or higher in the United States. The lowest performers (those 

in the bottom 10 percent) in Bermuda and Canada had average scores of 198 

or lower, 224 or lower in Norway, and 230 or lower in Switzerland, compared 

with 185 or lower in the United States. 

Further analysis also revealed that among U.S. adults, males outperformed females 

in numeracy skills, and White adults outscored Black and Hispanic adults, on 

average (Lemke et al. 2005). 

As additional countries collect ALL data, international comparisons of adults’ 

numeracy and mathematics literacy skills should reveal more information. Details 

on the results from the fi rst round of ALL can be found in Statistics Canada and 

OECD (2005; available at http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-603-XIE/

2005001/pdf.htm).

Country Average score

Switzerland 290

Norway 285

Bermuda 270

Canada 272

United States 261

Italy 233

 Average is higher than the U.S. average.

 Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average.

 Average is lower than the U.S. average.

Table 7. Average ALL numeracy scores of adults ages 16–65, by country: 2003

NOTE: Participants were scored on a 500-point scale.

SOURCE: Lemke, M., Miller, D., Johnston, J., Krenzke, T., Alvarez-Rojas, 

L., Kastberg, D., and Jocelyn, L. (2005). Highlights From the 2003 International Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL)—(Revised) (NCES 

2005-117rev), table 1. Data from Statistics Canada and Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Adult Literacy 

and Lifeskills Survey (ALL), 2003.
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 19

Science

Two international assessments measure aspects of science skills. The Trends in 

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) focuses on students’ performance on science that they are likely to have encountered in school by grades 

4 and 8; and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) focuses 

on the ability of 15-year-olds to apply science knowledge and skills to a variety 

of materials with a real-life context.

TIMSS

As noted earlier, TIMSS was administered three times (in grades 4 and 8 in 1995 

and 2003 and in grade 8 in 1999) across a range of countries. Closely linked 

with the curricula of the participating countries, TIMSS provides a measure of 

the degree to which students have learned concepts that they have encountered 

in school.

In every science administration, regardless of the measure, grade, or age tested, 

Japanese students, on average, outperformed U.S. students in science (Lemke et 

al. 2004; Gonzales et al. 2004). Otherwise, U.S. students’ performance in science 

is mixed: U.S. students performed better than their international peers in some 

countries and worse than their peers in other countries. 

 From 1995 to 2003, U.S. 4th-graders showed no measurable change in science performance on average, while 

8th-graders showed some improvement.

According to TIMSS, over time U.S. 4th-graders are being outpaced by their 

international peers in science, while U.S. 8th-graders are making progress (Gonzales et al. 2004). 

TIMSS 2003 science results at the 4th grade show that, on average, U.S. students 

performed above the international average, and had higher average scores than 

their peers in 16 of the 24 other participating countries (table 8). Students in 

three countries—Singapore, Chinese Taipei, and Japan—outperformed U.S. 4thgraders, on average. Nonetheless, U.S. 4th-graders made no signifi cant progress 

between 1995 and 2003, and they did not keep pace with improved scores 

among students in several other countries (Gonzales et al. 2004). Fourth-graders in nine countries demonstrated improvement in their average science scores 

over this period. Consequently, among the 14 other countries that participated 

at 4th grade in both years, students in the United States outperformed students 

in fewer countries in 2003 than in 1995 (8 compared with 13). Taken together, 

these data suggest that U.S. 4th-graders are not keeping pace with their international peers in science. 
Page 20 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

Grade 4

Country Average score 

 International average 489

Singapore 565

Chinese Taipei 551

Japan 543

Hong Kong SAR1, 2 542

England2 540

United States2

 536

Latvia 532

Hungary3 530

Russian Federation3 526

Netherlands2 525

Australia2

 521

New Zealand 520

Belgium-Flemish3 518

Italy 516

Lithuania4

 512

Scotland2

 502

Moldova, Republic of 496

Slovenia 490

Cyprus 480

Norway 466

Armenia 437

Iran, Islamic Republic of3 414

Philippines 332

Tunisia 314

Morocco 304

1

 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s 

Republic of China.

2

 Met international guidelines for participation rates only after 

replacement schools were included.

3

 National defi ned population covers less than 95 percent of national 

desired population.

4

 National desired population does not cover all of the international 

desired population.

5

 The international average reported here differs from that reported 

in Martin et al. (2004) due to the deletion of England. In Martin et 

al., the reported international average is 474. 

6

 Nearly satisfi ed guidelines for sample participation rates after 

replacement schools were included.

NOTE: The test for significance between the United States and 

the international average was adjusted to account for the U.S. 

contribution to the international average. Countries were required 

to sample students in the upper of the two grades that contained 

the largest number of 9- and 13-year-olds. In the United States and 

most countries, this corresponds to grades 4 and 8, respectively. 

Participants were scored on a 1,000-point scale. The international 

standard deviation is 100 points.

SOURCE: Gonzales, P., Guzman, J.C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, 

L., Kastberg, D., and Williams, T. (2004). Highlights From the Trends in 

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 

2005-005), tables 8 and 9. Data from International Association for the 

Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International 

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2003.

Grade 8

Country Average score 

 International average5 473

Singapore 578

Chinese Taipei 571

Korea, Republic of 558

Hong Kong SAR1, 2 556

Estonia 552

Japan 552

Hungary3 543

Netherlands2 536

United States6 527

Australia 527

Sweden 524

Slovenia 520

New Zealand 520

Lithuania4 519

Slovak Republic 517

Belgium-Flemish 516

Russian Federation3 514

Latvia 512

Scotland2 512

Malaysia 510

Norway 494

Italy 491

Israel3 488

Bulgaria 479

Jordan 475

Moldova, Republic of 472

Romania 470

Serbia4 468

Armenia 461

Iran, Islamic Republic of3

 453

Macedonia, Republic of3 449

Cyprus 441

Bahrain 438

Palestinian National Authority 435

Egypt 421

Indonesia4 420

Chile 413

Tunisia 404

Saudi Arabia 398

Morocco4, 6 396

Lebanon 393

Philippines 377

Botswana 365

Ghana 255

South Africa 244

 Average is higher than the U.S. average.

 Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average.

 Average is lower than the U.S. average.

Table 8. Average TIMSS science scores of 4th- and 8th-graders, by country: 2003
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 21

U.S. 4th-graders performed above the international average in all three science 

content areas (life science, physical science, and earth science) in 2003 (Martin 

et al. 2004). In addition, a greater percentage of U.S. students performed at the 

advanced TIMSS international benchmark compared with the international average (13 vs. 7 percent), but even so, the percentage of U.S. 4th-graders performing 

at this level declined from 1995 (when it was 19 percent). 

Turning to 8th grade, U.S. students, on average, performed above the international average and had higher science scores than their peers in 32 of the 44 

other participating countries in 2003 (table 8). U.S. 8th-graders improved their 

average science performance between 1995 and 2003, with the gain occurring 

primarily between 1999 and 2003 (Gonzales et al. 2004). Moreover, the relative standing of U.S. 8th-graders was higher in 2003 than in 1995 in relation to 

students in the 21 other countries participating in TIMSS in both years. That is, 

of the countries participating in both 1995 and 2003, U.S. 8th-graders outscored 

their international peers, on average, in 11 countries in 2003 compared with 5 

countries in 1995.

Based on fi ve science content areas measured in TIMSS (life science, chemistry, 

physics, earth science, and environmental science), U.S. 8th-graders showed 

improvement in earth science and physics between 1999 and 2003 (Gonzales et 

al. 2004). In 2003, a greater percentage of U.S. 8th-graders performed at the advanced TIMSS international benchmark compared with the international average 

(11 vs. 5 percent), though there had been no measurable change in the percentage 

of U.S. 8th-graders performing at this level in science since 1995.

Differences exist in science achievement within subgroups in the United States. 

At both 4th and 8th grade, boys outperformed girls in 2003 (Gonzales et al. 

2004). Fourth-grade boys’ scores declined from 1995 to 2003 while at 8th 

grade, both boys and girls showed improvement. White 4th- and 8th-graders 

had higher average science scores than their Black and Hispanic peers in 2003. 

At 4th grade, White student scores declined and Black student scores increased 

from 1995 to 2003. At 8th grade, the average scores of Black and Hispanic 

students increased between 1995 and 2003, while the average score of their 

White peers was not measurably different. Thus, the gap between White and 

Black students decreased at both grades. Further details on the TIMSS science 

results can be found in Gonzales et al. (2004; available at http://nces.ed.gov/

pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005005) and Martin et al. (2004; available at 

http://isc.bc.edu/timss2003i/scienceD.html).

PISA

While the primary emphases of PISA have been reading literacy in 2000 and 

mathematics literacy in 2003, each assessment contained a small section on the 

other two domains (science and mathematics or reading, respectively). PISA uses 
Page 22 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

the term science literacy to indicate its broader focus on students’ ability to apply their science knowledge and skills to a range of situations they are likely to 

encounter in their everyday lives.

 U.S. 15-year-olds scored below the OECD average in science literacy and below the average scores of students in 15 

of the 28 other participating OECD countries in 2003.

Based on PISA, U.S. 15-year-olds scored below the science literacy average of the 

29 participating OECD countries (table 9). Students in 15 OECD countries had 

higher average scores than students in the United States, and 6 OECD countries 

had lower average scores. No information about U.S. performance on specifi c sciCountry Average score

 OECD average 500

OECD countries

 Finland 548

 Japan 548

 Korea, Republic of 538

 Australia 525

 Netherlands 524

 Czech Republic 523

 New Zealand 521

 Canada 519

 Switzerland 513

 France 511

 Belgium 509

 Sweden 506

 Ireland 505

 Hungary 503

 Germany 502

 Poland 498

 Slovak Republic 495

 Iceland 495

 United States 491

 Austria 491

 Spain 487

 Italy 487

 Norway 484

 Luxembourg 483

 Greece 481

 Denmark 475

 Portugal 468

 Turkey 434

 Mexico 405

Table 9. Average PISA science literacy scores of 15-year-olds, by country: 2003

Country Average score

Non-OECD countries

 Hong Kong-China 540

 Liechtenstein 525

 Macao-China 525

 Russian Federation 489

 Latvia 489

 Uruguay 438

 Serbia and Montenegro 436

 Thailand 429

 Indonesia 395

 Tunisia 385

 Average is higher than the U.S. average.

 Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average.

 Average is lower than the U.S. average.

NOTE: The test for signifi cance between the United States and the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 

average was adjusted to account for the contribution of the U.S. 

average to the OECD average. Because PISA is principally an OECD 

study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately 

from those for the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD 

average. Due to low response rates, data for the United Kingdom are 

not included. Participants were scored on a 1,000-point scale. The 

international standard deviation is 100 points.

SOURCE: Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., Kastberg, D., and Jocelyn, L. (2004). International Outcomes of 

Learning in Mathematics Literacy and Problem Solving: PISA 2003 Results from the U.S. Perspective (NCES 2005-003), table B-17. Data from 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2003.
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 23

ence topics was available in PISA, but science literacy will be the primary domain 

covered in 2006, after which detailed information about U.S. performance will 

be available. Further details on the PISA science literacy results can be found in 

Lemke et al. (2004; available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=

2005003) and OECD (2004b; available at http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/

1/60/34002216.pdf).

Conclusion

Based on the results of recent international assessments, measures of students’ 

and adults’ skills and abilities in reading, mathematics, and science present a 

mixed picture (table 10). U.S. students perform relatively well in reading literacy 

compared with their peers around the world, including those in highly industrialized countries (based on PIRLS and PISA data). In addition, U.S. students 

perform relatively well in mathematics at the lower grades compared to their 

Table 10. U.S. performance on international assessments of mathematics, science, and reading 

relative to other countries

 Number of countries with

 average score relative to the United States

Subject and Number of Signifi cantly Not signifi cantly Signifi cantly

grade or age countries1 higher different lower

Reading

 4th-graders (2001) 34 3 8 23

 15-year-olds (2000) 30 3 20 7

Mathematics

 4th-graders (2003) 24 11 0 13

 8th-graders (2003) 44 9 10 25

 15-year-olds (2003) 38 23 4 11

Science

 4th-graders (2003) 24 3 5 16

 8th-graders (2003) 44 7 5 32

 15-year-olds (2003) 38 18 9 11

Adult literacy

 Ages 16–65 (2003) 5 4 0 1

Adult numeracy

 Ages 16–65 (2003) 5 4 0 1

1

 Includes those countries with approved data appearing in reports. Total excludes the United States.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 

2001; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2003; Statistics Canada and Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development (OECD), Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL), 2003; OECD, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2003, 

previously unpublished tabulation (October 2005).
Page 24 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

peers in other countries—though the data suggest that their performance may not 

be keeping pace with that of their peers—and are showing improvement in the 

middle school years (based on TIMSS data). However, when older U.S. students 

are asked to apply what they have learned in mathematics, they demonstrate less 

ability than most of their peers in other highly industrialized countries (based 

on PISA data). In science, U.S. students also perform relatively well at the lower 

grades compared with their peers in other countries—though, again, the data 

suggest that their performance may not be keeping pace with their peers—and 

are showing improvement in the middle school years (based on TIMSS data). 

This progress, though, may not carry over to tasks that are embedded in a reallife context: when asked to apply scientifi c skills, U.S. 15-year-olds performed 

worse than about half of their international peers (based on PISA data). Data 

on the literacy and numeracy skills of U.S. adults in comparison with their peers 

from other countries are fairly limited, but suggest that the skills of U.S. adults 

do not compare favorably (based on ALL data). 

Future data collections for TIMSS, PIRLS, and PISA will provide additional opportunities to compare the performance of U.S. students in mathematics, science, 

and reading to international benchmarks.
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 25

Notes

1

 PISA assesses each subject every 3 years. However, each assessment cycle focuses on one particular subject. In 2000, the focus was on reading 

literacy; in 2003, the focus was on mathematics literacy; in 2006, PISA will focus on science literacy.

2

 The international results may differ from trends reported in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and other national 

assessments. For further discussion of the differences between NAEP and the international student assessments, see http://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/

pdf/naep_timss_pisa_comp.pdf.

3

 The international average reported for PISA is based on results only from the OECD-member countries. Because PISA is primarily an OECD study, 

results for non-OECD-member countries are displayed separately from those of OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average.

4

 The international average reported for PISA is based on results only from the OECD-member countries. Because PISA is primarily an OECD study, 

results for non-OECD-member countries are displayed separately from those of OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average.

References

Adams, R. (Ed.). (2005). PISA 2003 Technical Report. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development. 

Buchmann, C. (2002). Measuring Family Background in International Studies of Education: Conceptual Issues 

and Methodological Challenges. In A.C. Porter and A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological Advances in CrossNational Surveys of Educational Achievement (pp. 150–197). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Coleman, J.S., Kelly, D.L., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., and York, R.L. (1966). 

Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Offi ce.

Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, P.L. 107-279, 116 Stat. 1940 (2002).

Entwisle, D.R., and Alexander, K. (1993). Entry Into School: The Beginning School Transition and Educational 

Stratifi cation in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 19: 401–423.

Ganzeboom, H.B.G., DeGraaf, P.M., and Treiman, D.J. (1992). A Standard International Socio-Economic 

Index of Occupational Status. Social Science Research, 21: 1–56.

Gonzales, P., Guzman, J., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Mak, K., Kastberg, D., and Williams, T. (2004). 

Highlights From the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 2005-005). 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Hampden-Thompson, G., and Johnston, J. (2006). Variation in the Relationship Between Nonschool Factors 

and Student Achievement on International Assessments (NCES 2006-014). U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Jencks, C., Bartlett, S., Corcoran, M., Crouse, J., Eaglesfi eld, D., Jackson, G., McClelland, K., Mueser, P., 

Olneck, M., Schwarz, J., Ward, S., and Williams, J. (1979). Who Gets Ahead? The Determinants of Economic 

Success in America. New York: Basic Books.

Lemke, M., Calsyn, C., Lippman, L., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., Liu, Y.Y., Roey, S., Williams, T., Kruger, T., 

and Bairu, G. (2001). Outcomes of Learning: Results From the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment of 15-Year-Olds in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy (NCES 2002-115). U.S. Department 

of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Lemke, M., Miller, D., Johnston, J., Krenzke, T., Alvarez-Rojas, L., Kastberg, D., and Jocelyn, L. (2005). 

Highlights From the 2003 International Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL)-(Revised) (NCES 2005-

117rev). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Page 26 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., Kastberg, D., and Jocelyn, L. (2004). 

International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics Literacy and Problem Solving: PISA 2003 Results From 

the U.S. Perspective (NCES 2005-003). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center 

for Education Statistics.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., and Chrostowski, S.J. (Eds.). (2004). TIMSS 2003 Technical Report. Chestnut 

Hill, MA: Boston College.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez, E.J., and Chrostowski, S.J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Science Report: Findings From IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and 

Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., and Kennedy, A.M. (Eds.). (2003). PIRLS 2001 Technical Report. Chestnut 

Hill, MA: Boston College.

McLanahan, S.S., and Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps?

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mullis, I.V.S., Kennedy, A.M., Martin, M.O., and Sainsbury, M. (2004a). PIRLS 2006 Assessment Framework 

and Specifi cations. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., and Chrostowski, S.J. (2004b). TIMSS 2003 International 

Mathematics Report: Findings From IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the 

Fourth and Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., and Kennedy, A.M. (2003). PIRLS 2001 International Report: 

IEA’s Study of Reading Literacy Achievement in Primary Schools in 35 Countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: 

Boston College.

Ogle, L.T., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., Roey, S., and Williams, T. (2003). International 

Comparisons in Fourth-Grade Reading Literacy: Findings From the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) of 2001 (NCES 2003-073). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (1999). Measuring Student Knowledge 

and Skills: A New Framework for Assessment. Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2001). Knowledge and Skills for Life: 

First Results From the OECD Program for International Student Assessment. Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2004a). Education at a Glance: OECD 

Indicators 2004. Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2004b). Learning for Tomorrow’s 

World: First Results From PISA 2003. Paris: Author.

Schmid, C.L. (2001). Educational Achievement, Language-Minority Students, and the New Second Generation. Sociology of Education, 74: 71–87.

Shavit, Y., and Blossfi eld, H.P. (Eds.). (1993). Persistent Inequality: Changing the Educational Stratifi cation 

in Thirteen Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Statistics Canada. (2005). The Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey: A Technical Report. Ottawa: Author.

Statistics Canada and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005). Learning 

a Living: First Results of the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. Ottawa and Paris: Authors.
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 27

United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2005). Human Development Report 2005. International 

Development at a Crossroads: Aid, Trade, and Security in an Unequal World. New York: Oxford University 

Press.

For more information, visit the following websites:

TIMSS: http://nces.ed.gov/timss or http://www.timss.org

PIRLS: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls or http://www.pirls.org

PISA: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa or http://www.pisa.oecd.org

ALL: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/all

International Comparisons: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/international
Page 28 | U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement

Technical Notes and Methodology

Data Source and Estimates

The data in this special analysis were obtained from statistical samples of entire 

populations. Estimating the size of the total population or subpopulations from 

a data source based on a sample of the entire population requires consideration 

of several factors before the estimates become meaningful. However conscientious an organization may be in collecting data from a sample of a population, 

there will always be some margin of error in estimating the size of the actual total 

population or subpopulation because the data are available from only a portion 

of the total population. Consequently, data from samples can provide only an 

estimate of the true or actual value. The margin of error or the range of the estimate 

depends on several factors, such as the amount of variation in the responses, the 

size and representativeness of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which 

the estimate is computed. The magnitude of this margin of error is measured by 

what statisticians call the “standard error” of an estimate.

Standard Errors

The standard error for each estimate in this special analysis was calculated in 

order to determine the “margin of error” for these estimates. The standard errors 

for all the estimated means and percentages reported in the fi gures and tables of 

the special analysis can be found in the main printed volume of The Condition 

of Education 2006, appendix 3, Standard Error Tables and on The Condition of 

Education website.

An estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more reliable estimate of the 

true value than an estimate with a higher standard error. Standard errors tend to 

diminish in size as the size of the sample (or subsample) increases. Consequently, 

for the same data, standard errors will almost always be smaller for groups who 

represent a larger proportion of the population.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Due to standard errors, caution is warranted when drawing conclusions about 

the size of one population estimate in comparison to another or whether a time 

series of population estimates is increasing, decreasing, or staying about the 

same. Although one estimate of the population size may be larger than another, 

a statistical test may reveal that there is no measurable difference between the 

two estimates due to their uncertainty.
U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement | Page 29

Whether differences in means or percentages are statistically signifi cant can be 

determined using the standard errors of the estimates. When differences are 

statistically signifi cant, the probability that the difference occurred by chance 

is usually small; for example, it might be about 5 times out of 100. Some details about the method primarily used for determining whether the difference 

between two means is statistically signifi cant are presented in The Condition of 

Education’s introduction to appendix 3, Standard Error Tables, available at http://

nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/guide/g3b.asp.

For this special analysis, differences between means or percentages (including 

increases or decreases) are stated only when they are statistically signifi cant. To 

determine whether differences reported are statistically signifi cant, two-tailed t 

tests, at the .05 level, were used. The t test formula for determining statistical signifi cance was adjusted when the samples being compared were dependent. When 

the difference between means or percentages was not statistically signifi cant, tests 

of equivalence were run. An equivalence test determines the probability (generally 

at the .15 level) that the means or percentages are statistically equivalent: that 

is, with the margin of error that the two estimates are not substantively different. When the difference was found to be equivalent, language such as x and y

“were similar” or “about the same” was used. Otherwise, the two estimates were 

reported as being “not measurably different.”

Rounding and Other Considerations

Although values reported in the supplemental tables are rounded to one decimal 

place (e.g., 76.5 percent), values reported in this special analysis are rounded 

to whole numbers (with any value of 0.5 or above rounded to the next highest 

whole number). Due to rounding, total percentages sometimes differ from the 

sum of the reported parts, which may, for example, equal 99 or 101 percent, 

rather than the percentage distribution’s total of 100 percent.