U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2006-010

Findings From PISA 2000

October 2005

Mariann Lemke

National Center for Education Statistics

Anindita Sen

Jamie S. Johnston

Erin Pahlke

Education Statistics Services Institute

Trevor Williams

David Kastberg

Leslie Jocelyn

Westat

Characteristics 

of U.S. 15-Year-Old

Low Achievers in an

International Context

Statistical Analysis Report

i
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Grover J. Whitehurst

Acting Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, 

analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. 

It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete 

statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and 

specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local 

education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education 

activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, 

reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, 

useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, 

other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language 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 suggestions about 

this or any other NCES 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

October 2005

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

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

Suggested Citation

Lemke, M., Sen, A., Johnston, J.S., Pahlke, E., Williams, T., Kastberg, D., and Jocelyn, L. (2005). 

Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context: Findings from PISA 

2000 (NCES 2006-010). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

For ordering information on this report, write to

 U.S. Department of Education

 ED Pubs

 P.O. Box 1398

 Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS or order online at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html

Content Contact

Elois Scott

202-502-7489

elois.scott@ed.gov

Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

ii
Findings From PISA 2000

iii

Executive Summary

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), sponsored by the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and carried out in 32 countries, including the 

United States, evaluates 15-year-old students’ literacy in three areas: reading, mathematics, and 

science.1 The first PISA survey was conducted in 2000, with additional assessments planned on a

3-year cycle. Each survey focuses on one of the three types of literacy; in PISA 2000, reading literacy 

was the major focus.2 Therefore, it is possible to perform a detailed examination of reading literacy 

within and across countries. 

In this and other PISA reports, the United States is compared to both the OECD average and other 

countries participating in PISA. The OECD average is the mean of the scores of each OECD country. 

PISA participating countries include both OECD and non-OECD countries.

In PISA, students’ proficiency is defined in terms of six levels of reading literacy.3 The highest 

performing students in PISA are categorized as level 5, while the lowest performing students are 

categorized as below level 1. Students proficient at level 1 are capable of completing only the least 

complex reading tasks developed for PISA, such as locating a single piece of information, identifying 

the main theme of a text, or making a simple connection with everyday knowledge. Students below 

level 1 are not capable of routinely performing these basic tasks. This does not mean that they 

have no reading literacy skills. Many of these students can answer questions correctly, but PISA 

2000’s descriptions of levels cannot accurately predict what skills those students have, and so they 

are categorized as below level 1. For the purpose of this report, students scoring at the two lowest 

levels of achievement, level 1 and below level 1, have been combined together in one category 

and are referred to as either low performers, low-achieving students, or level 1 or below students 

interchangeably throughout the report.

This report has two objectives: first, to explore how the demographic and educational characteristics 

of low-performing students compare to other students within the United States; second, to analyze 

if the United States differs from the other PISA countries in terms of the characteristics of its lowperforming students.

For both these objectives, the report uses the measure of relative likelihood (risk) ratios. Relative 

likelihood is the ratio of the two likelihood measures, calculated for each group being compared, in 

this case, low-performing students (students scoring at level 1 or below) and the overall 15-year-old 

student population (students scoring at all proficiency levels: below level 1, level 1, level 2, level 3, level 

4, and level 5). A relative likelihood or risk ratio greater than 1 implies that a particular characteristic is 

more likely to be observed among the low performers than on average. A relative likelihood ratio less 

than 1 implies that a particular characteristic is less likely to be observed among the low performers 

than on average. For example, for the low-performing group, the likelihood of a U.S. student being 

foreign born is given by the percentage of foreign-born students at level 1 or below (12 percent) (table 

B-8). For the overall 15-year-old student population, the likelihood of a U.S. student being foreign born 

is given by the average percentage of foreign-born students across all the proficiency levels (7 percent). 

Hence, the relative likelihood ratio for a U.S. student being foreign born across these two groups was 

1.7 (=12/7) (table B-23). That is, a low-performing U.S. student was 1.7 times more likely to be foreign 

born than the average U.S. student. 

1Although the Netherlands participated in PISA 2000, technical problems with its sample prevent its results from being discussed here. 

For information on the results for the Netherlands, see OECD (2001).

2For more information about PISA, see appendix A.

3For more information about the achievement levels and the process used to define them, see appendix A.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

iv

The student characteristics examined in this report can be grouped into student demographic and 

background characteristics (sex, race/ethnicity in the United States, socioeconomic status [SES], student 

and parent nativity, parent education, and language spoken most of the time at home), characteristics 

relating to student attitudes toward learning and school (engagement in reading, sense of belonging 

in school, effort and perseverance in schoolwork, and missing school and skipping class), and 

characteristics relating to student learning practices and expectations (participation in private tutoring 

and remedial classes in the test language outside of school during the 3 years prior to the survey, U.S. 

job expectations by age 30 as reported by students).

Comparisons made in the text of this report have been tested for statistical significance at the .05 alpha 

level. The tests used were two types of standard t tests, depending on whether the averages being 

compared were independent or dependent. To guard against errors of inference based on multiple 

comparisons, as in the case of comparing all countries to the United States, the Bonferroni adjustment 

procedure was used.4

Main Findings

Eighteen percent of U.S. 15-year-old students achieved at level 1 or below in PISA 2000; this 

percentage was not measurably different from the OECD average (table B-2). 

Student Demographic and Background Characteristics

PISA 2000 included a set of questions on background factors, such as sex and national origin that 

help identify the differences between students at level 1 or below and the average within each 

participating country.5

• There were more males among low-performing students (compared to the average) in all PISA 

countries (tables A and B-4). In the United States, the likelihood of a low-performing student 

being male was 1.3 times the average likelihood of a student being male (table B-23). 

• In the United States, there were fewer White students among the low performers (compared 

to their proportion on average across all proficiency levels), while the reverse was true for 

Black and Hispanic students (tables A and B-5). In the United States, the likelihood of a lowperforming student being White was one-half (0.5) the average likelihood of a student being 

White (table B-24). The relative likelihood of a low-performing student being either Black or 

Hispanic was 2.0; that is, low performers were twice as likely to be Black or Hispanic than on 

average (table B-24).

• A higher percentage of students with “low” SES were found among low performers (compared 

to their proportion on average) in the United States and every other country except Japan 

(tables A and B-6).6 In the United States, the likelihood of a low-performing student coming 

from a low-SES background was 1.7 times the average likelihood of a student being low-SES 

(table B-23). 

• Compared to the average for the overall 15-year-old student population, there were more 

foreign-born students and students with two foreign-born parents at level 1 or below in the 

United States and the majority of other PISA countries with data available (tables A, B-7, and 

4For more information about statistical tests used in this report, see appendix A.

5For more information about the SES variable, how low SES is defined, and the parent education variable, see the Description of Variables section in 

appendix A.

6The SES measure is derived from students’ reports of parental occupation. Occupations were coded to the International Standard Classification 

of Occupations 1988 (ISCO-88) and then grouped into major occupational groups. The groups were collapsed into three categories of “low,” 

“medium,” and “high” SES based on the occupational content of the group as well as the relationship to an internationally comparable index ranging 

from 0-90 (known as the ISEI or International Socio-Economic Index).
Findings From PISA 2000

v

B-8). In the United States, the likelihood of a low-performing student being foreign born or 

having two foreign-born parents was higher (1.7 and 1.6 times, respectively) than the average 

likelihood of a student being foreign born or having two foreign-born parents (table B-23). 

• A higher percentage of low performers reported that their parents did not have a college 

degree compared to the average in most of the PISA 2000 countries, including the United 

States (tables A and B-9).7 In the United States, the likelihood of a low-performing student 

having parents with less than college education was 1.3 times the average likelihood of a 

student having parents with less than college education (table B-23). 

• In the United States and two-thirds of the other PISA participating countries with data available, 

there was a higher percentage of low-performing students who did not speak the test language 

at home most of the time compared to the overall 15-year-old student population (tables A 

and B-10). In the United States, the likelihood of a low-performing student not speaking English 

most of the time at home was 2.2 times the average likelihood of a student not speaking 

English most of the time at home (table B-23). 

Student Attitudes Toward Learning and School

PISA 2000 also included a set of questions that aimed to assess students’ attitudes toward learning 

and school, such as levels of engagement in reading, sense of belonging in school, and effort and 

perseverance in schoolwork.8 The resulting indices provide additional information about the differences 

between students at level 1 or below and the overall 15-year-old student population.

• In all of the PISA 2000 countries, a higher percentage of low-performing students reported 

low engagement in reading compared to the average proportion (tables A and B-12).9 In the 

United States, the likelihood of a low-performing student having low engagement in reading was 

1.6 times the average likelihood of a student having low engagement in reading (table B-23).

• With the exception of Finland and Sweden, in all of the PISA 2000 countries, a higher 

percentage of low performers reported a low sense of belonging in school compared 

to the average proportion (tables A and B-14).10 In the United States, the likelihood of 

a low-performing student having a low sense of belonging in school was 1.7 times the 

average likelihood of a student having a low sense of belonging (table B-23).

• In 20 of the 23 countries with data available, including the United States, a higher percentage 

of students with low effort and perseverance was found at level 1 or below compared to 

the average proportion (tables A and B-16).11 In the United States, the likelihood of a lowperforming student reporting low effort and perseverance was 1.3 times the average likelihood 

of a student reporting low effort and perseverance (table B-23). 

• In most of the PISA 2000 countries with data available including the United States, a higher 

percentage of students who missed school frequently was found among the low performers 

7Student reports of parents’ educational attainment may be inaccurate as some students either do not know or exaggerate parent education. 

8For more information about the engagement in reading, sense of belonging, and effort and perseverance indices and the missing school and 

skipping class variables, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A.

9The reliability measure for the “Engagement in Reading” index was 0.76. Student index values from all OECD countries were arrayed and 

cut points calculated for the bottom quarter and top quarter of students. Students with index values in the bottom quarter (value of -0.66 or 

lower) were categorized as having “low” engagement in reading, and students with index values in the top quarter (value of 0.58 or higher) were 

categorized as having “high” engagement in reading. Students with all other index values (value of higher than -0.66 but 0.58 or lower) were 

categorized as having a “medium” sense of engagement in reading.

10The reliability measure for the “Sense of Belonging in School” index was 0.86. Students with index values in the bottom quarter (value of 

-0.61 or lower) were categorized as having a “low” sense of belonging, and students with index values in the top quarter (value of 0.48 or higher) 

were categorized as having a “high” sense of belonging. Students with all other index values (value of higher than -0.61 but 0.48 or lower) were 

categorized as having a “medium” sense of belonging.

11The reliability measure for the “Effort and Perseverance in Schoolwork” index was 0.83. Students with index values in the bottom quarter (value 

of -0.64 or lower) were categorized as having “low” effort and perseverance, and students with index values in the top quarter (value of 0.69 or 

higher) were categorized as having “high” effort and perseverance. Students with all other index values (value of higher than -0.64 but 0.69 or 

lower) were categorized as having a “medium” sense of effort and perseverance in schoolwork.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

vi

compared to the average proportion (tables A and B-17). In the United States, the likelihood 

of a low-performing student reporting missing school frequently was 2.4 times the average 

likelihood of a student reporting missing school frequently (table B-23).

• In most of the PISA 2000 countries with data available, including the United States, a higher 

percentage of students who skipped class frequently was found among the low performers 

compared to the average proportion (tables A and B-18). In the United States, the likelihood of 

a low-performing student skipping school frequently was 1.8 times the average likelihood of a 

student skipping class frequently (table B-23).

Student Learning Practices and Expectations

A unique aspect of PISA is its exploration of student learning practices outside of the curriculum 

or school environment. This is reflected in a set of questions that inquires about whether students 

supplement training in school through classes of various types, such as remedial courses or private 

tutoring, as well as about students’ job expectations.12

• In the United States and 17 other PISA 2000 countries with data available, there was no 

measurable difference between the average proportion of students who received tutoring 

regularly at level 1 or below and the average percentage (tables A and B-19). In the United 

States, the likelihood of a low-performing student attending private tutoring regularly was 

not measurably different from the average likelihood of a student attending private tutoring 

regularly (table B-23).

• In the United States and 18 other PISA 2000 countries, a higher percentage of low performers 

regularly attended remedial courses outside of school in the test language, compared to the 

average (tables A and B-20). Hence, in the United States, the likelihood of a low-performing 

student attending remedial courses regularly was 3.4 times the average likelihood of a student 

attending remedial courses regularly (table B-23).

• In the United States, a lower percentage of low performers reported that they expected to 

be “professionals,” compared to the average proportion for the overall 15-year-old student 

population (tables A and B-22). In the United States, there was a higher relative likelihood of 

finding students who expected to work in the elementary occupations (1.5), or be a technician 

and associate professionals (1.2), service worker (1.8), clerk (2.3), craft and related trade 

worker (2.4), or a plant and machine operator and assembler (3.4) among the low-performing 

students compared to the overall 15-year-old student population (table B-25).

12For more information about the variables private tutoring, remedial course attendance, and job expectations, see the Description of Variables 

section in appendix A.
Findings From PISA 2000

vii

Table A. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale and of the overall 15-year-old student population 

in the United States, by selected characteristics: 2000

Characteristic

Percent

Level 1 or below Overall

Sex

Female 37.9* 51.6

Male 62.1* 48.4

Socioeconomic status (SES)1

Low SES 42.0* 25.0

Medium SES 41.9 41.4

High SES 16.1* 33.6

Race/ethnicity

White 28.2* 59.2

Black 27.9* 13.9

Hispanic 35.4* 18.0

Other 8.5 8.8

Parent national origin

Both parents foreign born 21.8* 13.6

One parent native born and one parent foreign born 8.0* 5.8

Both parents native born 70.1* 80.6

Student national origin

Student foreign born 12.1* 7.3

Student native born 87.9* 92.7

Parent education1,2

Parent completed less than college 60.2* 45.5

Parent completed college or higher 39.8* 54.5

Language spoken at home most of the time

Test language spoken at home most of the time 76.5* 89.2

Language other than the test language spoken at home most of the time 23.5* 10.8

Engagement in reading

Low engagement in reading 49.2* 30.7

Medium engagement in reading 39.3 43.8

High engagement in reading 11.5* 21.5

Sense of belonging in school

Low sense of belonging in school 42.8* 25.2

Medium sense of belonging in school 38.8 43.8

High sense of belonging in school 18.4* 31.0

Effort and perseverance in schoolwork

Low effort and perseverance in schoolwork 44.6* 35.6

Medium effort and perseverance in schoolwork 34.2* 43.8

High effort and perseverance in schoolwork 21.2 25.4

See notes at end of table.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

viii

Table A. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale and of the overall 15-year-old student population 

in the United States, by selected characteristics: 2000—Continued

Characteristic

Percent

Level 1 or below Overall

Private tutoring outside of school

Never received private tutoring outside of school 80.1* 84.5

Sometimes received private tutoring outside of school 15.2* 12.2

Regularly received private tutoring outside of school 4.7 3.3

Remedial course attendance in the test language outside of school

Never attended remedial courses in the test language outside of school 83.5* 94.6

Sometimes attended remedial courses in the test language outside of school 13.5* 4.5

Regularly attended remedial courses in the test language outside of school 3.0* 0.9

Skipping class

Never skipped class 73.0* 80.7

Skipped class 1 or 2 times a week 17.4* 14.0

Skipped class 3 or more times a week 9.6* 5.3

Missing school

Never missed school 42.9* 59.1

Missed school 1 or 2 times a week 37.8* 32.8

Missed school 3 or more times a week 19.3* 8.2

Student reports of job expectations1,2

Armed forces # #

Clerks 0.9 0.4

Craft and related trade workers 10.7* 4.5

Elementary occupations 8.6* 5.5

Legislators, senior officials, and managers 3.2 4.1

Plant and machine operators and assemblers 2.3 0.7

Professionals 38.4* 58.6

Service workers, shop, and market sales workers 14.1* 7.8

Skilled agricultural and fishery workers 1.1 0.6

Technicians and associate professionals 20.8 17.6

#Rounds to zero.

*p < .05. Percent at level 1 or below is significantly different from percent overall.

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been 

explicitly accounted for.

2The item response rate for students overall is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 

2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items 

at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. 

For more information about the selected characteristic variables, see the Description of Variables section in 

appendix A. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population 

in the United States. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

ix

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to making this report possible, and the authors wish to thank all those who 

have assisted with various aspects of the report, including data analysis, review, and design.

We would like to thank the technical reviewers (Shelley Burns, Marilyn Seastrom, David Miller, Aparna 

Sundaram, Deven Carlson, Robert Stillwell) and other reviewers (Val Plisko, Arnold Goldstein, Lynn 

Spencer, Duc-Le To, and the Institute of Education Sciences external reviewers) for their helpful 

technical and editorial feedback. Lisette Partelow assisted in the creation of the tables and the editing 

of the report. 

Thanks are also owed to Mike Stock, Tatiana Watson, and Brian Henigin of Westat for their design work.

Finally, we wish to especially thank the students, schools, and principals who participated in PISA 2000. 

Their time and effort provide us with data to look beyond our borders and gain valuable insight into our 

educational practices.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

x
Findings From PISA 2000

xi

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

List of Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

More About PISA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PISA’s Yield Measure of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Reading Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Definition of Reading Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Reading Literacy in PISA Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Reading Literacy by Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Student Demographic and Background Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Race/Ethnicity in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Socioeconomic Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Parent and Student National Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Parent Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Language Spoken at Home Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Student Educational Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Attitudes Toward Learning and School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Engagement in Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Sense of Belonging in School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Effort and Perseverance in Schoolwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Missing School and Skipping Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Learning Practices and Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Private Tutoring Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Remedial Courses in the Test Language Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Student Reports of Job Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

xii

Appendix A: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

The Program for International Student Assessment of 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Sample Design and Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Data Entry and Cleaning Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Confidentiality and Disclosure Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Test Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Scaling and Plausible Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Plausible Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Grade Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Data Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Nonsampling Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Sampling Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Data Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Description of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Construction of Socioeconomic Status (SES) Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

PISA Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Student Educational Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Statistical Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Tests of Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Standard Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Missing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Literacy Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Appendix B: Supporting Statistical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Appendix C: Sample Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Findings From PISA 2000

xiii

List of Tables

Table Page

 A. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale and of the overall 15-year-old student population in 

the United States, by selected characteristics: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

 1. Number of PISA countries with data available for 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by selected student background 

characteristics: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 2. Number of PISA countries with data available for 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by selected student characteristics: 2000 . . 22

 3. Number of PISA countries with data available for 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by selected student characteristics and 

career expectations: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

 A-1. Coverage of target population, student and school samples, and participation rates in the 

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

 A-2. Percentage distribution of 15-year-old students, by assessment subject grade and 

country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

 B-1. Combined reading literacy average scores of 15-year-old students, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . 63

 B-2. Percentage of 15-year-old students scoring at selected proficiency levels on the 

combined reading literacy scale, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

 B-3. Combined reading literacy average scores of 15-year-old students by sex, female-male score

point difference, and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

 B-4. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by sex and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

 B-5. Percentage distributions of U.S. 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading literacy scale, by race/ethnicity: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

 B-6. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on 

the combined reading literacy scale, by socioeconomic status and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

 B-7. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on 

the combined reading literacy scale, by parent national origin and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 70

 B-8. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on 

the combined reading literacy scale, by student national origin and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . 72

B-9. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on 

the combined reading literacy scale, by parent education and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
B-10. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by language spoken at home most of the time 

and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

B-11. Average index scores for 15-year-old students’ engagement in reading, by country: 2000 . . . . 75

B-12. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by level of engagement in reading and 

country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

B-13. Average index scores of 15-year-old students’ sense of belonging in school, by 

country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

B-14. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by level of sense of belonging in school and 

country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

B-15. Average index scores of 15-year-old students’ effort and perseverance in schoolwork, 

by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

B-16. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by effort and perseverance in schoolwork and 

country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

B-17. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of missing school and 

country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

B-18. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of skipping classes and 

country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

B-19. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of receiving private tutoring outside 

of school and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

B-20. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of remedial course attendance in 

the test language outside of school and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

B-21. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students’ career expectations, by selected job 

categories and country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

B-22. Percentage distributions of U.S. 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading literacy scale, by selected job expectations: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . 97

Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

xiv
B-23. Relative likelihood ratios for selected student characteristics of 15-year-old students scoring

at level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale compared to the overall 

15-year-old student population, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

B-24. Relative likelihood ratios of U.S. 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 or below on the

combined reading literacy scale compared to the overall U.S. 15-year-old student

population, by race/ethnicity: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

B-25. Relative likelihood ratios of U.S. 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale compared to the overall U.S. 15-year-old student

population, by selected job expectations: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Findings From PISA 2000

xv
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

xvi

List of Figures

Figure Page

 1. Combined reading literacy average scores of 15-year-old students, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . 6

 2. Percentage of 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 or below and level 5 on the 

combined reading literacy scale, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 3. Percentage of male 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

 4. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who had two foreign-born parents, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . 14

 5. Percentage of foreign-born 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

 6. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who did not speak the test language at home most of 

the time, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

 7. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who had low engagement in reading, by country: 2000 . . . . . 23

 8. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who had low effort and perseverance in schoolwork, 

by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

 9. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who missed school frequently, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 28

 10. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who skipped class frequently, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 29

 11. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who received private tutoring regularly outside of 

school, by country: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Findings From PISA 2000

xvii

List of Exhibits

Exhibit Page

 1. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 2. Participating countries in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA): 2000 . . . . . . 4

 3. Reading literacy task descriptions and score cut points, by proficiency level: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 4. PISA 2000 countries grouped by their relative likelihood ratios as compared to the 

United States, by selected student background characteristics: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 5. PISA 2000 countries grouped by their relative likelihood ratios as compared to the 

United States, by selected student educational characteristics: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 A-1. International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) major occupational groups 

created by the International Labor Organization (ILO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

xviii
Findings From PISA 2000

1

Introduction

The Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA) is an international comparative 

assessment of 15-year-old students’ capabilities 

in three domains: reading literacy, mathematics 

literacy, and science literacy. PISA also measures 

general or cross-curricular competencies, such as 

learning strategies.

PISA is being implemented on a 3-year cycle 

that began in 2000. In PISA 2000, student 

proficiency was defined in terms of six levels of 

reading literacy. The highest performing students 

in PISA were categorized as level 5, while the 

lowest performing students were categorized as 

below level 1. Students proficient at level 1 were 

capable of completing only the least complex 

reading tasks developed for PISA, such as locating 

a single piece of information, identifying the main 

theme of a text, or making a simple connection 

with everyday knowledge. Students below level 

1 were not capable of routinely performing these 

basic tasks. This does not mean they have no 

reading literacy skills. Many of these students 

answered some questions correctly, but PISA 

2000’s descriptions of levels cannot accurately 

predict what skills those students have, and so 

they were categorized as below level 1. For the 

purposes of this report, students who scored at 

the two lowest levels of achievement (level 1 and 

below level 1) have been combined together in 

one category. This category is referred to as low 

performers, low-achieving students, or level 1 or 

below students interchangeably throughout the 

report.

First results from PISA were released in 

December 2001 (see Knowledge and Skills for 

Life: First Results from the OECD Programme 

for International Student Assessment [OECD 

2001] and Outcomes of Learning: Results from 

the 2000 Program for International Student 

Assessment of 15-Year-Olds in Reading, 

Mathematics, and Science Literacy [Lemke et 

al. 2001]). Results focused on reading literacy, 

the primary domain assessed in 2000. Those 

results showed that, in comparison to the other 

participating countries, the U.S. average score 

for reading literacy was not measurably different 

from most other countries or the OECD average. 

In addition, the results showed that the United 

States had a higher percentage of students 

performing at the top level than 14 of the other 

participating countries (level 5, using the PISA 

described proficiency scales), but had 18 percent 

of students performing at the lowest levels, which 

is a lower percentage of students than in 5 of 

the other participating countries and a higher 

percentage of students than in 3 of the other 

countries. Therefore, it is possible to perform a 

detailed examination of reading literacy within 

countries and at levels of proficiency across 

countries. 

In this and other PISA reports, the United States 

is compared to both the OECD average and 

other countries participating in PISA. The OECD 

average is the mean of the scores of each OECD 

country. PISA participating countries include 

both OECD and non-OECD countries. 

One important question for policymakers and 

practitioners, is what are the characteristics 

of these low performers compared to what is 

observed at the national average level? What 

can we learn about low performers that could 

be useful in developing policies or strategies to 

enhance their performance? For example, how 

do U.S. low performers differ in terms of key 

background variables such as socioeconomic 

status (SES) or place of birth compared to what 

is observed on average for the 15-year-old 

student population in the United States? The use 

of international comparative data such as PISA 

allows us to examine both the existence and 

depth of such differences in characteristics of 

low performers in other countries as well. So, 

for example, if we learn that there are greater 

numbers of foreign-born students among low 

performers in the United States, we can also 

examine whether or not this situation exists in 

other countries, and the extent to which it does. 

This report has two objectives: first, to explore 

how selected demographic and educational 

characteristics of low-performing students 

compare to U.S. averages; second, to extend this 

analysis to other PISA countries to examine if U.S. 

low performers differ from other low performers 

in terms of their characteristics relative to national 

averages.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

2

For both these objectives, we employ the 

measure of relative likelihood (risk) ratios. Relative 

likelihood is the ratio of the two likelihood 

measures, calculated for each group being 

compared, in this case, low-performing students 

(students scoring at level 1 or below) and the 

overall 15-year-old student population (students 

scoring at all proficiency levels: below level 1, 

level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, and level 5). A 

relative likelihood or risk ratio greater than 1 

implies that a particular characteristic is more 

likely to be observed among the low performers 

than on average in the overall 15-year-old student 

population. A relative likelihood ratio less than 

1 implies that a particular characteristic is less 

likely to be observed among the low performers 

than on average. For example, for the lowperforming group, the likelihood of a U.S. student 

being foreign born is given by the percentage 

of foreign-born students at level 1 or below (12 

percent) (table B-8). On average, the likelihood 

of a U.S. student being foreign born is given by 

the average percentage of foreign-born students 

across all the proficiency levels (7 percent). 

Hence, the relative likelihood ratio for a U.S. 

student being foreign born is 1.7 (=12/7) (table 

B-23). That is, a low-performing U.S. student was 

1.7 times more likely to be foreign born than the 

average U.S. student. 

Next, relative likelihood ratios were used to 

examine cross-country differences among 

low performers. For example, among the 

countries where the relative likelihood ratio of a 

low-performing student being foreign born was 

higher than 1, the U.S. ratio was lower than that 

in 6 countries and the OECD average (exhibit 4). 

That is, in 6 countries, low-performing students 

were more likely to be foreign born compared 

to their national averages than in the United 

States. This kind of comparison may help 

policymakers understand better the relative 

risks of low-performing students having various 

characteristics in the United States compared

to other countries.

The report is grouped into the following sections 

based on the type of student characteristics 

examined: 

1) Student demographic and background 

characteristics (sex, race/ethnicity in the 

United States, SES, parent and student 

national origin, parent education, and 

language spoken at home most of the 

time).

2) Student educational characteristics

• Attitudes toward learning and school 

(engagement in reading, sense of 

belonging in school, effort and 

perseverance in schoolwork, and 

missing school and skipping class).

• Learning practices and expectations 

(private tutoring outside of school, 

remedial courses in the test language 

outside of school, and student reports 

of job expectations).

Comparisons made in the text of this report 

have been tested for statistical significance at 

the .05 level. The tests used were two types 

of standard t tests, depending on whether the 

averages being compared were independent or 

dependent. To guard against errors of inference 

based on multiple comparisons, as in the case 

of comparing all countries to the United States, 

the Bonferroni adjustment procedure was used. 

Appendix A provides an overview of additional 

technical issues related to sampling methodology, 

and statistical tests used, as well as additional 

information about various constructed variables 

used in the analyses for this report.

Appendix B is a compilation of supplemental 

tables providing the data for the various student 

characteristics at the national average and level 

1 or below for the participating PISA 2000 

countries.

Appendix C provides some released sample 

items that illustrate a range of questions from the 

PISA reading literacy domain and sample student 

responses.
Findings From PISA 2000

3

More About PISA

Each PISA assessment cycle focuses on one 

particular subject, although all three are assessed 

in each cycle. In the first cycle, PISA 2000, 

reading literacy was the major focus, occupying 

roughly two-thirds of assessment time. In PISA 

2003, the focus was on mathematics literacy, and 

in 2006, it will be on science literacy.

PISA will report on performance in reading 

literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy 

every 3 years, and provide a more detailed 

look at each domain for the year when it is the 

major focus (exhibit 1). These cycles will allow 

countries to compare changes in trends for each 

of the three content areas over time. Future 

cycles will also include further development of 

the assessment of cross-curricular competencies, 

such as problem solving in 2003.

PISA is sponsored by the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECD), an intergovernmental organization of 

30 industrialized nations that serves as a forum 

for member countries to cooperate in research 

and policy development on social and economic 

topics of common interest. PISA is a collaborative 

venture, with representatives from member 

country governments jointly steering the project 

through a Board of Participating Countries. At the 

international level in 2000, the Australian Council 

for Educational Research (ACER) led a consortium 

that coordinated PISA under direction from the 

OECD.1 In the United States, the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) was responsible 

for U.S. data collection and represented the 

United States in the international management of 

the assessment. Westat, a private research firm, 

handled the data collection in the United States 

for PISA 2000 under contract to NCES.

In 2000, 32 countries participated in PISA, 

including 28 OECD countries and 4 non-OECD 

countries (exhibit 2).2,3

To implement PISA 2000, each participating country 

selected a nationally representative sample of 15-

year-old students. The U.S. school sampling frame, 

which was used to determine which schools would 

participate in the assessment, was developed 

from two lists. Regular public, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, and Department of Defense Education 

Activity schools were obtained from the 1999 list 

of schools maintained by Quality Education Data, 

Inc. (QED). Catholic and other nonpublic schools 

were obtained from the Private School Universe 

Survey (PSS) developed for NCES’s 1999–2000 

Schools and Staffing Survey. In the United States 

after replacement, the school response rate was 

70 percent and the student response rate was 85 

percent. The final U.S. sample included nearly 4,000 

students from both public and nonpublic schools 

from several grade levels.4 Appendix A contains 

more information about sampling, response rates, 

and other aspects of PISA 2000’s design.

�������

�����������

�������

�������

�����������

�������

������

�

�����������

������

�

����

�������

����

�������

����

�������

Exhibit 1. Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA) cycle

NOTE: The subject in all capital letters in each 

assessment cycle is the major domain for that cycle.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development (OECD), Program for International 

Student Assessment (PISA) 2000.

1Other members of the PISA Consortium include the Netherlands National Institute for Educational Measurement (CITO), Educational Testing 

Service (ETS, USA), the National Institute for Educational Policy Research (NIER, Japan), and Westat (USA).

2Although the Netherlands participated in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2000, technical problems with its sample 

prevent its results from being discussed here. For information on the results for the Netherlands, see OECD (2001).

3Another 12 countries carried out a second round of the PISA 2000 assessment in 2002.

4For information on distributions of students by grade levels in participating countries, see appendix A.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

4

Each selected student completed an 

approximately 120-minute assessment and a 

20- to 30-minute questionnaire designed to 

gather information about his or her background 

and experiences related to reading. Principals 

in schools where students took the PISA 

assessment also completed a background 

questionnaire about their schools. PISA 2000 

consisted of a mix of multiple-choice, shortanswer, and extended-response questions. 

Assessments were conducted in the United 

States in the spring of 2000 by trained test 

administration field staff who visited each of the 

participating schools and administered both the 

assessments and the questionnaires.

PISA’s Yield Measure of Learning

The purpose of PISA is to represent the overall 

yield of learning for 15-year-old students.

This yield is the sum of learning outcomes for 

15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, 

and science literacy and is represented by 

national averages of student scores. PISA 

assesses the cumulative educational experiences 

of each student who is 15 years of age at the 

time of the assessment, irrespective of the 

grade level or type of institution in which he/she 

is enrolled. PISA assumes that by the age of 

15, young people have had a series of learning 

experiences, both in and out of school, that allow 

them to perform at particular levels of reading, 

mathematics, and science literacy. Clearly, formal 

education will have played a major role in their 

performance, but other factors, such as learning 

opportunities at home or elsewhere outside 

of school, also play a role. The findings from 

PISA provide a valuable indicator of a country’s 

educational system, but they also provide 

information about other factors that are related 

to performance.

By assessing students near the end of 

compulsory schooling in key knowledge and 

skills, PISA seeks to provide information about 

how prepared students will be for their future 

lives as they approach an important transition 

point for education and work. PISA aims to 

show how well-equipped 15-year-old students 

are for their futures based on what they have 

learned up to that point.

Exhibit 2. Participating countries in 

the Program for International 

Student Assessment (PISA): 

2000

Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD) countries

Australia Greece Netherlands

Austria Hungary New Zealand

Belgium Iceland Norway

Canada Ireland Poland

Czech Republic Italy Portugal

Denmark Japan Spain

Finland Korea, Republic of Sweden

France Luxembourg Switzerland

Germany Mexico United Kingdom

United States

Non-OECD countries

Brazil

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Russian Federation

NOTE: PISA is principally an OECD study, and so the 

non-OECD countries are displayed separately from the 

OECD countries.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development (OECD), Program for International 

Student Assessment (PISA) 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

5

Reading Literacy

PISA builds upon the work of previous U.S. national 

and international studies in defining and reporting on 

reading literacy, such as the International Association 

for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement’s 

(IEA) Reading Literacy Study (IRLS) of 1991 and the 

International Adult Literacy Study (IALS) of 1994.

Definition of Reading Literacy

PISA defines reading literacy as

...understanding, using, and reflecting 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).

Since PISA measures the achievement of 15-year-old 

students, it does not focus on the most basic reading 

skills. Instead, PISA seeks to measure the extent to 

which students can construct, extend, and reflect on 

the meaning of what they read across a wide variety 

of texts associated with a wide variety of situations 

(OECD 1999). 

In short, PISA measures how well 15-year-old 

students are able to apply different reading 

processes to a wide range of reading materials, 

such as the kinds of forms they receive from their 

governments, the kinds of articles they read in their 

local newspapers, the kinds of manuals they read for 

work or school, or the kinds of books or magazines 

they read for entertainment.

The basic form of the assessment reflects this range 

of materials and processes. Each reading literacy 

assessment unit consists of a passage of text, 

followed by a number of questions, some with a 

multiple-choice format and others requiring students 

to construct their own answers. Examples of reading 

assessment items can be found in appendix C.

Reading Literacy in PISA Countries

Perhaps the simplest and most concise way to look 

at a country’s yield in reading literacy is to examine 

its national average score. The PISA reporting scale 

is constructed so that the average score for students 

from all OECD countries is 500 with a standard 

deviation of 100. This means that about two-thirds 

of students score between 400 and 600. Because 

of the statistical techniques used to sample students, 

however, simply ranking countries based on their 

average score is not correct.5 In figure 1, the shading 

identifies countries whose averages are higher, lower, 

or not measurably different from that of the United 

States on the combined reading literacy scale. NonOECD countries are shown at the bottom of the 

figure with shading to indicate differences from the 

United States, but participating countries that are not 

OECD members were not included in determining 

the OECD average.

On the combined reading literacy scale, U.S. 15-

year-old students performed about as well on 

average as 15-year-old students in most countries 

(figure 1; table B-1). U.S. students performed 

better than students in the OECD countries Greece, 

Luxembourg, Mexico, and Portugal, and the nonOECD countries Brazil, Latvia, and the Russian 

Federation. Students in Canada, Finland, and New 

Zealand outperformed U.S. students. U.S. students’ 

performance was not measurably different from 

that of students in the other 19 participating OECD 

countries or Liechtenstein.

Reading Literacy by Levels

While the basic form of measurement in PISA 

describes student literacy in each country in terms of 

a range of scale scores, PISA also treats proficiency 

in reading literacy in terms of six described levels. 

Increasing levels represent tasks of increasing 

complexity. As a result, the findings are reported in 

terms of percentages of the population proficient at 

handling tasks of different levels of difficulty. 

The combined reading literacy scale is divided into 

five levels based on the type of knowledge and skills 

students need to demonstrate at a particular level.6 

A sixth level (below level 1) is made up of students 

whose abilities could not be accurately described 

based on their responses. Reading literacy task 

descriptions and cut scores calculated for students 

scoring at each level are described in exhibit 3.

5Average scores for each country are based on a sample of students, rather than all students, and are estimates of the population value of all 

15-year-old students in each country. These estimates have a known degree of sampling error, the standard error, and an unknown degree of 

nonsampling error. There is a 95 percent chance that the true average lies within the range of approximately two times the standard error above or 

below the estimated score. See table B-1 for standard errors.

6Levels were defined such that students at the top of a level had a 62 percent chance of answering the hardest items in the level correctly and 

students at the bottom of the same level had a 62 percent chance of answering the easiest items in that level correctly. For more information on 

the process of defining levels, see appendix A.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

6

A small number of students in each country had 

scores below the lowest of the defined levels, level 1; 

that is, they were not able to routinely demonstrate 

the most basic type of knowledge and skills that 

PISA sought to measure (Lemke et al. 2001). These 

students scored below 335 points on the PISA 2000 

reading literacy scale. These students were not 

included in the proportions for students at level 1, 

but were considered as below level 1 because PISA 

2000’s descriptions of levels could not accurately 

predict what skills those students may have.

Figure 2 shows the percentages of 15-year-old 

students who were at the highest and lowest levels 

of the combined reading literacy scale.

Overall, percentages of U.S. students across the 

levels were not measurably different from the OECD 

average percentages, except at level 5, the highest 

level. Twelve percent of U.S. 15-year-old students 

read at level 5, compared to 9 percent for the OECD 

average (figure 2; table B-2). Looking across the 

countries, the proportion of U.S. students at level 5 

was greater than that in 14 countries, less than that 

in 2 countries, and not measurably different from 

that in 14 countries.

Eighteen percent of 15-year-old students in 

the United States scored at level 1 or below, a 

percentage not measurably different from 22 other 

countries or the OECD average (figure 2; table B-2). 

The remaining sections investigate how the 

characteristics of low performers differ from the 

overall 15-year-old student populations within each 

country (with a focus on the United States). Relative 

likelihood ratios were used to determine whether 

there was a greater likelihood of finding students 

with a particular characteristic at level 1 or below 

compared to their average percentage. The overall 

15-year-old student population includes students at 

all of the proficiency levels: below level 1, level 1, 

level 2, level 3, level 4, and level 5. 

Missing data have not been explicitly accounted for 

or imputed in the analyses for this report. When 

more than 15 percent of the student responses 

are missing, the estimates have been flagged in 

the supporting statistical data tables in appendix 

B. When more than 50 percent of the responses 

are missing, the data are not presented in the data 

tables. Particular attention to the problem of missing 

data should be considered when analyzing the data 

by parental education and students’ reports of job 

expectations.

Figure 1. Combined reading literacy 

average scores of 15-year-old 

students, by country: 2000 

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

Non-OECD countries

Liechtenstein 483

Russian Federation 462

Latvia 458

Brazil 396

■Average is significantly higher than the U.S. average.

■Average is not significantly different from the U.S. average.

■Average is significantly lower than the U.S. average.

NOTE: The OECD average is the average of the national 

averages of the OECD member countries with data 

available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the 

results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately 

from those of the OECD countries and are not included 

in the OECD average.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

7

Exhibit 3. Reading literacy task descriptions and score cut points, by proficiency level: 2000

Achievement 

level and score 

cut points1

Task descriptions

Retrieving information Interpreting texts Reflecting on texts

Level 1 

(335-407)

Locate one or more independent 

pieces of explicitly stated 

information, typically meeting a 

single condition or criterion, with 

little or no competing information 

in the text. 

Recognize the main theme or 

author’s purpose in a text about 

a familiar topic, when the idea is 

prominent or pervasive, either by 

being repeated or by appearing 

early in the text.

Make a simple connection 

between information in the 

text and common, everyday 

knowledge, with explicit direction 

to consider relevant factors in the 

task and the text. 

Level 2 

(408-480)

Locate one or more pieces of 

information, which may need 

to be inferred, and may need to 

meet several conditions, with 

some competing information 

present in the text. 

Recognize the main idea in a 

text when the information is 

not prominent. Understand 

relationships or construe meaning 

within a limited part of the text, 

making low level inferences. Make 

comparisons or contrasts based 

on only one feature of the text.

Make a comparison or several 

connections between the text 

and outside knowledge. Draw 

on personal experience and 

attitudes to explain a feature of 

the text. 

Level 3 

(481-552)

Locate and, in some cases, 

recognize the relationship 

between several pieces of 

information that must meet 

multiple conditions set by 

the question, with prominent 

competing information. 

Integrate several parts of a text 

in order to identify a main idea, 

understand a relationship, or 

construe the meaning of a word 

or phrase. Take into account many 

features in comparing, contrasting 

or categorizing, where required 

information is not prominent.

Make connections, comparisons, 

and explanations, or evaluate a 

feature of the text. Demonstrate 

a fine understanding of the text 

in relation to familiar, everyday 

knowledge. Draw on less 

common knowledge. Infer 

factors to be considered.

Level 4 

(553-625)

Locate and organize several 

pieces of embedded information, 

typically in a text whose content 

and form are unfamiliar.

Construe the meaning of nuances 

of language in a section of text 

by taking into account the text 

as a whole. Show understanding 

and apply categories in an 

unfamiliar context. 

Critically evaluate a text or 

hypothesize about information 

in the text, using formal or public 

knowledge. Demonstrate an 

accurate understanding of long or 

complex texts. 

Level 5 (626 

and above)

Locate and organize several 

pieces of information in 

unfamiliar contexts, where some 

information is deeply embedded 

and its relevance must be inferred 

from the text.

Demonstrate a full and detailed 

understanding of a text whose 

content or form is unfamiliar. 

Deal with concepts that are 

contrary to expectations.

Critically evaluate or hypothesize 

about the content of texts, 

drawing on specialized 

knowledge. Deal with concepts 

that are contrary to expectations.

1Exact cut point scores are as follows: below level 1: a score equal to or less than 334.75; level 1: a score 

greater than 334.75 and equal to or below 407.47; level 2: a score greater than 407.47 and equal to or below 

480.18; level 3: a score greater than 480.18 and equal to or below 552.89; level 4: a score greater than 552.89 

and equal to or below 625.61; and level 5: a score greater than 625.61.

NOTE: In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items 

at that level. Students were classified into reading levels according to their scores.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items, 2000.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

8

� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

�������������

������������������

������

������

������������������

�������

�����

������

�������

���������

������

��������������

������

�������

�������

�����

������

��������������

�������

�����

�������

�����������

�������

������

�������

������

��������

����������

������

������������

��������������

������������������

�������

����������������

� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��

�������������

�����������

�������

�������

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� ��

�� �

�� ��

�� �

�� �

�� ��

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� ��

�� ���

�� ��

�� ��

�� ��

�� ��

�� ��

� ��

� �

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� �

�� �

Figure 2. Percentage of 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 or below and level 5 on the 

combined reading literacy scale, by country: 2000

NOTE: Countries are ordered according to percentage of students scoring at level 1 or below. Students were 

classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach 

a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students 

scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below, while students scoring 

626 or above were classified at level 5. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD 

member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD 

countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

9

Student 

Demographic 

and Background 

Characteristics

This chapter examines selected student 

demographic and background characteristics 

(sex, race/ethnicity in the United States, 

socioeconomic status [SES], parent and student 

national origin, parent education, and language 

spoken at home) of low performers, with the 

objective of showing how low performers in 

the United States compare to U.S. averages 

and how low performers in other countries 

compare to their national averages.

It should be noted that for some variables, 

there were not enough data available from 

some countries to report. Table 1 provides 

information about the participating countries 

with data available for each background 

characteristic. For more information about the 

participating countries, see tables B-4, B-6, B-7, 

B-8, B-9, and B-10 in appendix B.

Sex

Equality between males and females in 

educational opportunity and outcomes is 

an important education policy goal in many 

OECD countries (United Nations, International 

Monetary Fund, World Bank, and OECD 2000). 

The first results from PISA showed that, on 

average, among 15-year-old students, females 

outperformed males in every participating 

country on the combined reading literacy scale 

(Lemke et al. 2001). The size of the difference 

in the United States between females (average 

score of 518) and males (average score of 490) 

in reading literacy was not measurably different 

from that of all of the other PISA 2000 

countries, with the exception of Finland and 

Latvia, where the gap on the combined reading 

literacy scale was larger than that of the United 

States (table B-3). 

In the United States, males represented 62 

percent of the students achieving at level 1 

or below, while accounting for 48 percent of 

students overall (figure 3; table B-4). Conversely, 

females represented 38 percent of students 

achieving at level 1 or below and 52 percent of 

students overall. Hence, in the United States, the 

Table 1. Number of PISA countries with 

data available for 15-year-old 

students scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading 

literacy scale, by selected student 

background characteristics: 2000 

Characteristic

Level 

1 or 

below

Sex

Female 31

Male 31

Socioeconomic status (SES)

Low SES 30

Medium SES 30

High SES 30

Parent national origin

Both parents foreign born 29

One parent native born and one parent 

foreign born 29

Both parents native born 30

Student national origin

Student foreign born 29

Student native born 30

Parent education

Parent completed less than college 29

Parent completed college or higher 29

Language spoken at home most of the time

Test language spoken at home most of the time 29

Language other than the test language spoken 

at home most of the time 28

NOTE: See the Description of Variables section 

in appendix A for more information about the 

characteristics.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student 

Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

10

� �� �� �� �� ���

������������������

�������������

������

������

�������������

��������������

�����������

������

�����

��������

������

������

�����������

������

����������

������������������

�����

�����

�������

�������

�������

������

�������

������

�������

�������

��������������

������

�������

�������

���������

������������

��������������

������������������

�������

���������������� �������

Figure 3. Percentage of male 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below 

on the combined reading literacy scale, by country: 2000

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 

2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items 

at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. 

The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. 

Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those 

of the OECD countries and not are included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample 

estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

11

likelihood of a low-performing student being male 

was 1.3 times the average likelihood of a student 

being male (table B-23). Likewise, in all of the 

other PISA 2000 countries, there was a greater 

likelihood of a low-performing student being male 

compared to the average student. 

The U.S. ratio for males was lower than that in 7 

countries (Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, 

Iceland, Japan, Latvia, and New Zealand) 

(exhibit 4). That is, in the United States, a low 

performer was 1.3 times more likely to be male 

than the U.S. average, while a Canadian low 

performer was 1.4 times more likely to be male 

compared to the Canadian average, for instance 

(table B-23). However, the U.S. ratio was 

higher than that in 5 countries (Brazil, Germany, 

Hungary, Luxembourg, and Mexico). 

Race/Ethnicity in 

the United States

Data from PISA 2000 for the United States 

showed that, on average, White students and 

students of “other” racial/ethnic backgrounds 

outscored Black and Hispanic students in reading 

literacy (Lemke et al. 2001).7, 8 Given differences 

among countries in definitions of racial and 

ethnic groups, no comparisons are made to other 

countries for this variable.

Overall, 59 percent of U.S. 15-year-old students 

identified themselves as White, 14 percent as 

Black, 18 percent as Hispanic, and 9 percent as 

of “other” racial/ethnic origin (table B-5). 

Twenty-eight percent of U.S. students at level 1 

or below were White, compared to 59 percent 

of students on average. In contrast, 28 percent 

of level 1 or below students identified themselves 

as Black (compared to 14 percent on average) 

and 35 percent as Hispanic (compared to 18 

percent on average). Hence, in the United States, 

the likelihood of a low-performing student being 

White was one-half (0.5) the average likelihood 

of a student being White (table B-24). The 

relative likelihood of a low performing student 

being either Black or Hispanic was 2.0; that is, on 

PISA 2000’s measure of reading, low performers 

were twice as likely to be Black or Hispanic as 

on average. National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) reading scores for eighth-graders 

in 2003 showed that the relative likelihood of 

low-performing students (those at the Below 

Basic level as defined by NAEP) being Black was 

2.8 times the average and being Hispanic was 3.0 

times the average, while the likelihood of a 

low-performing student being White was about 

one-quarter (.27) of the average likelihood.9

Socioeconomic Status 

A strong relationship has been found to exist 

between the SES of a student’s parents and 

a student’s learning outcomes, including 

performance on assessments like PISA (Coleman 

et al. 1966; Lemke et al. 2001; West, Denton, 

and Reaney 2000; Williams et al. 2000). 

However, it is not clear that students are 

always able to report family income accurately 

or whether income adequately captures all 

resources available to a family. Hence, studies 

such as PISA do not ask students to report family 

income (Williams et al. 2000). 

For PISA, in this report, the SES measure was 

derived from students’ reports of parental 

occupation. Occupations were coded to 

the International Standard Classification of 

Occupations 1988 (ISCO-88) and then grouped 

into major occupational groups.10 The groups 

were collapsed into three categories of “low,” 

“medium,” and “high” SES based on the 

occupational content of the group as well as 

the relationship to an internationally comparable 

index ranging from 0-90 (known as the ISEI or 

7The “other” group comprises students identifying themselves as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or 

multiracial since the numbers of these students are too small to report by individual categories.

8Because these racial and ethnic categories are not common across countries, it is not possible to compare the U.S. situation with respect to race 

and ethnicity to other countries.

9It is important to keep in mind, however, that NAEP tested 8th graders, while PISA assessed 15-year-olds, and that the “below basic” level in PISA is 

not directly comparable to the low-performing group in PISA because of different level-setting processes used in each study.

10For more information about ISCO-88, see International Labor Organization (ILO) (1990).
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

12

Exhibit 4. PISA 2000 countries grouped by their relative likelihood ratios as compared to 

the United States, by selected student background characteristics: 2000

Characteristic

Relative likelihood ratio

Higher than the United States Lower than the United States

Male Canada Brazil

Czech Republic Germany

Finland Hungary

Iceland Luxembourg

Japan Mexico

Latvia

New Zealand

Low 

socioeconomic 

status

United Kingdom Brazil Luxembourg

Canada Mexico

Czech Republic Norway

France Poland

Greece Portugal

Iceland Spain

Ireland Sweden

Italy Russian Federation

Latvia OECD average

Both parents 

foreign-born 

Austria Luxembourg Canada

Belgium Mexico

Denmark Norway

Finland Sweden

Germany Switzerland

Greece OECD average

Foreign-born Austria Spain

France Sweden

Germany OECD average

Mexico

Parents with 

less than college 

education

Canada Austria Latvia

Denmark Belgium Liechtenstein

Brazil Luxembourg

Czech Republic Mexico

Finland New Zealand

France Poland

Germany Portugal

Greece Russian Federation

Hungary Spain

Iceland Switzerland

Italy United Kingdom

Korea, Republic of OECD average

Non-tes language 

speakers

Austria Australia Luxembourg

Denmark Belgium Mexico

France Canada Portugal

Germany Italy OECD average

Liechtenstein

NOTE: For more information about the selected variables, see the Description of Variables section in appendix 

A. Relative likelihood (risk) ratio is calculated across two groups: 1) low-performing students (scoring at level 1 or 

below) and 2) the overall 15-year-old student population (scoring at all proficiency levels: below level 1, level 1, 

level 2, level 3, level 4, and level 5). A relative likelihood ratio greater than 1 implies that a particular characteristic 

is more likely to be observed among the low performers than for the overall 15-year-old-student population. A 

relative likelihood ratio less than 1 implies that a particular characteristic is less likely to be observed among the low 

performers than for the overall 15-year-old-student population. Includes PISA 2000 countries that reported relative 

likelihood ratios higher than 1 in the student characteristics reported.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

13

International Socio-Economic Index).11 These 

groupings were then applied to the data for 

each country, allowing for the calculation of the 

percentage of students in each nation who were 

from high-, medium-, or low-SES backgrounds. 

By this measure, 25 percent of the 15-year-old 

U.S. student population was considered low SES 

(41 percent were medium SES and 34 percent 

were high SES) (table B-6). Neither the low- nor 

high-SES percentages were measurably different 

from the OECD averages (26 percent and 29 

percent, respectively). More students at the OECD 

average (45 percent) were considered medium SES 

than in the United States. Of the other countries 

participating in PISA 2000, Austria had a smaller 

percentage of students with low SES than the 

United States, while 7 countries had a greater 

percentage of students with low SES. Thirteen 

countries had smaller percentages of students with 

high SES, while Norway had a higher percentage of 

students with high SES than the United States.

In the United States, 42 percent of students 

achieving at level 1 or below came from a 

low-SES background, compared to 25 percent 

of U.S. students overall. Hence, in the United 

States, the likelihood of a low-performing student 

coming from a low-SES background was 1.7 

times the average likelihood of a student being 

low SES (table B-23). The greater likelihood of 

a low-performing student coming from a low 

SES background held true for all the other PISA 

countries except Japan.

The U.S. ratio was lower than the ratio in one 

country, the United Kingdom (exhibit 4). British 

low performers were 1.8 times more likely to 

report being low-SES than on average in Britain, 

while U.S. low performers were 1.7 times more 

likely to come from a low-SES background than 

the U.S. average. In contrast, the U.S. likelihood 

ratio was higher than in 17 (about half) of the 

other PISA 2000 countries and the OECD 

average. That is, U.S. low performers were 

more likely than low performers in most OECD 

countries to report being low SES compared to 

their respective national averages.

Parent and Student 

National Origin

Data from PISA 2000 showed that in most 

countries 15-year-old students with foreignborn parents had lower reading literacy scores 

than those with parents born in the country 

of the assessment (Lemke et al. 2001). This 

section explores that performance gap further 

by examining the nativity of the parents of 

students achieving at level 1 or below. In addition 

to parent national origin, this section also 

looks at student national origin, examining the 

percentages of foreign-born students among low 

performers. This information can help deal with 

the question of how the United States compares 

to other countries in terms of addressing equity 

for students whose parents were born outside 

of the country where they attend school, or for 

students who were themselves born outside of 

the country. 

Overall, 14 percent of 15-year-old students in 

the United States reported that both of their 

parents were foreign born, while 7 percent of 

U.S. students reported that they themselves were 

foreign born (figures 4 and 5; tables B-7 and B-8). 

Neither of these percentages was measurably 

different from the OECD average (9 percent and 

7 percent, respectively). Relative to the United 

States, 16 countries (about half) had a smaller 

percentage of students with two foreign-born 

parents, while 10 reported a smaller percentage 

of foreign-born students. Only two countries had 

a larger percentage of students with two foreignborn parents, while 6 countries had a larger 

percentage of foreign-born students relative to 

the United States.

In the United States, 22 percent of students 

achieving at level 1 or below reported having two 

foreign-born parents, compared to 14 percent of 

students on average (figure 4; table B-7). Hence, in 

the United States, the likelihood of a low-performing 

student having two foreign-born parents was 1.6 

times the average likelihood of a student having 

two foreign-born parents (table B-23). 

11For details about construction of the SES index, see appendix A. For details about construction of the ISEI index, see Ganzeboom and Treiman 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

14

� �� �� �� �� ���

������������������

�������������

������

������

�������������

��������������

�����������

������

�����

��������

������

������

�����������

������

����������

�������

�����

�������

�������

�������

������

��������

������

�������

�������

���������������

������

�������

�������

���������

������������

�������

���������������� �������

��������������

������������������

Figure 4. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who had two foreign-born parents, by country: 2000

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases to report at level 1 or below).

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Data for the Republic of Korea are not available. Students were classified into reading levels according to 

their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have 

been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined 

reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the 

OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD 

countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. 

The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

15

� �� �� �� ��

������������������

�������������

������

������

�������������

��������������

�����������

������

�����

��������

������

������

�����������

������

����������

������

�����

�������

�������

�������

������

��������

������

�������

�������

���������������

������

�������

�������

���������

������������

�������

���������������� �������

��������������

������������������

Figure 5. Percentage of foreign-born 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading literacy scale, by country: 2000

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases to report at level 1 or below).

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Data for the Republic of Korea are not available. Students were classified into reading levels according to 

their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have 

been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined 

reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the 

OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD 

countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. 

The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

16

In fact, in the majority of countries (19 of the 

other 28) with data available, the relative likelihood 

ratio of a low-performing student having two 

foreign-born parents was measurably larger than 

1. In Ireland, in contrast, the likelihood of a low 

performer having two foreign-born parents was 

actually less (.60) than the average.

Among the countries where the relative likelihood 

ratio of a low-performing student reporting two 

foreign-born parents was higher than 1, the U.S. 

ratio was lower than that in 11 countries and the 

OECD average, while it was higher than that in 

Canada (exhibit 4). This implies that although 

Canada had a higher percentage of students with 

two foreign-born parents overall (21 percent) 

compared to the United States (14 percent), 

the likelihood of a U.S. low performer reporting 

two foreign-born parents was greater than the 

likelihood of a Canadian low performer reporting 

two foreign-born parents compared to their 

respective national averages.

Twelve percent of U.S. students achieving at level 

1 or below were foreign born, compared to 7 

percent of U.S. students who were foreign born on 

average. Hence, in the United States, the likelihood 

of a low-performing student being foreign born 

was 1.7 times the average likelihood of a student 

being foreign born (table B-23). For nine of the 

other PISA 2000 countries, the relative likelihood 

of a low-performing student being foreign born 

was not measurably different from 1. There 

were two countries (Ireland and Switzerland) for 

which the relative likelihood of a low-performing 

student being foreign born was less than 1. This 

implies that a low-performing student in Ireland or 

Switzerland was less likely to be foreign born than 

on average. 

Among the 17 other countries where the relative 

likelihood ratio of a low-performing student 

being foreign born was greater than 1, the U.S. 

ratio was lower than that in 7 countries and the 

OECD average (exhibit 4). That is, on average 

across OECD countries, low performers were 

more likely to report being foreign born than low 

performers in the United States compared to 

their respective national averages.

Parent Education

Students with more highly educated parents tend 

to perform better on academic assessments, as 

shown by the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) and the Third International 

Mathematics and Science Study of 1999 (TIMSS 

1999) (Braswell et al. 2001; Gonzales et al. 

2000). Children learn through interacting with 

others, and activities such as reading to children 

can enhance their reading skills and knowledge 

(Snow, Burns, and Griffen 1998; Burgess, Hecht, 

and Lonigan 2002). Research has shown that 

highly educated parents are more likely to 

provide a rich home literacy environment, as 

well as have higher expectations for their child’s 

performance, all of which can positively affect 

student performance on assessments (Hernandez 

1993).

In the PISA 2000 background questionnaire, 

students were asked whether their parents had 

completed various levels of education as defined 

by the International Standard Classification of 

Education (ISCED).12 For example, students were 

asked if either of their parents had completed 

a bachelor’s, master’s, or postgraduate degree, 

which correspond to ISCED levels 5A, 5B, and 

6, respectively. This section examines the 

distribution of students who scored at level 1 or 

below by parent education.

Missing data are not accounted for or imputed 

in the analyses for this report. Categories where 

more than 15 percent of the student responses 

are missing are flagged in table B-9. When more 

than 50 percent of the responses are missing, 

the data are not presented in the data table. 

Particular attention to the problem of missing 

data should be considered when analyzing the 

parent education data.

Data from PISA 2000 showed that in most 

countries, 15-year-old students with at least 

one parent with a college education had higher 

reading literacy scores than those with parents 

with lower levels of education (Lemke et al. 

2001). In fact, in the United States, there was 

a 93-point score gap in performance between 

12For more information about the ISCED levels, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A.
Findings From PISA 2000

17

students with at least one parent who attended 

college and those whose parents had not 

completed high school (Lemke et al. 2001).

This section explores the performance gap by 

parent education further by examining how 

students with differing levels of parent education 

are distributed among those achieving at level 1 or 

below.13 Students were classified for this purpose 

into two categories: those with at least one parent 

with a college degree, and those with neither 

parent with a college degree. 

In the United States, students with at least one 

parent who completed college represented 

40 percent of the students achieving at level 

1 or below, and accounted for 55 percent of 

students overall (table B-9).14 Sixty percent of 

U.S. students at level 1 or below reported that 

their parents had less than a college degree, 

higher than the 45 percent of students reporting 

the same overall. In the United States, then, the 

likelihood of a low-performing student having 

both parents with less than college education 

was 1.3 times the average likelihood of having 

both parents with less than college education 

(table B-23). In 26 other countries (of 29 

participating PISA 2000 countries), the relative 

likelihood ratio of a low-performing student not 

having a college-educated parent was also higher 

than 1. However, in three of the other PISA 

2000 countries (Ireland, Norway, and Sweden), 

the relative likelihood ratio was not measurably 

different from 1; i.e., there was no measurable 

difference between the proportion of lowperforming students with parents who did not 

complete college and the proportion of students 

with this characteristic on average.

Among the 27 countries where the relative 

likelihood ratio of a low-performing student not 

having a college-educated parent was greater 

than 1, the U.S. ratio was lower than that in 

Canada and Denmark, while it was higher than 

that in 23 countries and the OECD average 

(exhibit 4). That is, in Canada and Denmark, 

low-performing students were more likely to 

have parents without a college education than 

on average in those countries compared to the 

United States. However, the likelihood of U.S. 

low achievers having less-than-college-educated 

parents (compared to the national average) was 

higher than in three-quarters of the other PISA 

countries. 

Language Spoken at 

Home Most of the Time

Census 2000 figures indicate that about 18 

percent of the U.S. population age 5 and over 

speaks a language other than English at home 

(U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 

Census 2003). Results from PISA 2000 showed 

that, in most countries, test language speakers 

(that is, those who speak the language of the 

assessment—English, for the United States—at 

home most of the time) perform better on 

average than non-test language speakers 

(Lemke et al. 2001). This section explores 

that performance gap further by examining 

the percentages of test and non-test language 

speakers who are low performing.

In PISA 2000, students were asked what language 

they spoke at home most of the time. In the 

United States, the assessment was given in English 

and students were asked if they spoke English, 

Spanish, or another language at home most of 

the time. Other countries included response 

options for students to choose an official 

national language other than the language of the 

assessment (for example, in Canada, students 

taking an assessment in English could choose 

French) or a national dialect. In this report, for 

these countries, all these responses are grouped 

as languages other than the test language. Two 

countries, Hungary and the Republic of Korea, 

did not provide data for this question.

Overall, 11 percent of students in the United 

States reported that they spoke a language 

other than English at home most of the time 

(figure 6; table B-10). Four countries—Belgium, 

13Thirty-six percent of U.S. students achieving at level 1 or below did not answer the questions related to parent education on the PISA 2000 

questionnaire.

14Student reports of parents’ educational attainment may be inaccurate as some students either do not know or exaggerate parent education.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

18

� �� �� �� �� ���

������������������

�������������

������

������

�������������

��������������

�����������

������

�����

��������

������

������

������������

������

����������

������

�����

�������

�������

������

��������

������

�������

�������

��������������

������

��������

�������

���������

������������

�������

���������������� �������

��������������

������������������

Figure 6. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who did not speak the test language at home 

most of the time, by country: 2000

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases to report at level 1 or below).

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Data for Hungary and the Republic of Korea are not available. Students were classified into reading levels 

according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student 

must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on 

the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of the national 

averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the 

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

in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student 

population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

19

Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Switzerland—

had greater percentages of non-test-languagespeaking students than the United States, while 

nine countries had smaller percentages. The 

remaining 15 countries had percentages of nontest-language-speaking students that were not 

measurably different from the U.S. percentage.

In the United States, 24 percent of students 

achieving at level 1 or below were non-English 

speakers, compared to 11 percent of non-English 

speakers overall (figure 6, table B-10). Hence, 

in the United States, the likelihood of a lowperforming student not speaking English at 

home was 2.2 times the average likelihood of 

a student not speaking English at home (table 

B-23). In 21 of the other 27 PISA countries, the 

relative likelihood of a low-performing student 

not speaking the test language at home was 

higher than 1. The remaining 6 countries had a 

relative likelihood ratio not measurably different 

from 1; i.e., the percentages of non-test language 

speakers achieving at levels 1 or below were not 

measurably different from those observed on 

average in those countries.15

Among the countries where the relative likelihood 

ratio of a low-performing student not speaking 

the test language was greater than 1, the U.S 

ratio was lower than that in 4 countries, while 

it was higher than that in 8 countries and the 

OECD average (exhibit 4). In Austria, Denmark, 

France, and Germany, low achievers were more 

likely to be non-test language speakers compared 

to their respective national averages than in 

the United States. However, compared to the 

national averages, U.S. low performers were more 

likely to be non-test-language speakers than low 

performers in the OECD countries on average.

15Note that while Japan was included in the comparisons of the overall percentage of non-test language speakers, the percentages of non-test 

language speakers at level 1 or below in Japan was too small to report. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

20
Findings From PISA 2000

21

Student Educational 

Characteristics

The preceding chapter examined differences 

between students at level 1 or below compared 

to the national averages based on background 

variables such as language or nativity. This 

chapter focuses on the differences between low 

performers based on their responses to questions 

about 1) their attitudes toward learning and school 

and 2) their learning practices and expectations. 

Attitudes Toward 

Learning and School

All of the index measures used in this chapter 

were created using a range of items from the PISA 

2000 student questionnaires related to specific 

learning strategies. Students were asked for their 

level of agreement with statements like “I find it 

hard to finish books” and “I feel lonely at school,” 

or how frequently they “keep working even if the 

material is difficult.” Answers to these questions 

were combined into indices with values ranging 

from -1 to 1. The OECD average index value was 

set at zero. A negative index value (depending 

on the size of the standard error) could show a 

lower-than-average use of the featured strategy 

compared to the OECD average, while a positive 

index value could suggest a more frequent use of 

the strategy. For more information about how the 

indices were constructed, see appendix A.

As in previous discussions of results, it is not 

possible to establish causal conclusions regarding 

the relationship between student performance and 

attitudes toward learning and school, since there 

may be a two-way relationship between student 

performance and learning strategies, or both may 

be influenced by a third set of factors. Moreover, 

factors such as home and school contexts can 

also play an important role in influencing student 

performance (Mullis et al. 2000; Lemke et al. 

2001). This chapter seeks only to explore if any 

patterns regarding student attitudes toward learning 

and school for students scoring at level 1 or below 

are observed across PISA 2000 countries.

It should be noted that some countries did not 

collect data on student attitudes for some indices, 

while in other categories there were not enough 

data available from a country to report. Table 2 

provides information about the participating 

countries with data available for each learning 

strategy measure. For more information about 

the participating countries, see tables B-12, B-14, 

B-16, B-17, and B-18 in appendix B.

Engagement in Reading 

PISA 2000 measured student engagement in 

reading by asking for students’ level of agreement 

(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) 

with the following statements: 

• I read only if I have to;

• Reading is one of my favorite hobbies; 

• I like talking about books with people; 

• I find it hard to finish books; 

• I feel happy if I receive a book as a present; 

• For me, reading is a waste of time;

• I enjoy going to a bookstore or a library; 

• I read only to get information that I need; 

and 

• I cannot sit still and read for more than a 

few minutes.

The U.S. average index value for engagement in 

reading was -0.14, which was lower than the 

OECD average index value (zero) for engagement 

in reading (table B-11).16 Sixteen of the 30 

other participating countries reported higher 

levels of engagement in reading among their 

students relative to their U.S. peers, while two 

countries, Belgium and Germany, reported lower 

engagement levels.

In order to examine differences among low 

achievers in engagement in reading, in the United 

States and other countries, student index values 

from all OECD countries were arrayed and cut 

points calculated for the bottom quarter and top 

quarter of students. Students with index values in 

the bottom quarter (value of -0.66 or lower) were 

16The reliability measure for the “Engagement in Reading” index was 0.76.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

22

categorized as having “low” engagement in reading, 

and students with index values in the top quarter 

(value of 0.58 or higher) were categorized as 

having “high” engagement in reading. The resulting 

cut points were then applied to the index scores 

from each nation, allowing for the calculation of the 

percentage of students in each nation who showed 

high or low levels of engagement.

Forty-nine percent of U.S. students at level 1 

or below reported low engagement in reading, 

compared to 31 percent overall (figure 7; 

table B-12). Hence, in the United States, the 

likelihood of a low-performing student having low 

engagement in reading was 1.6 times the average 

likelihood of a student having low engagement in 

reading (table B-23). In fact, the relative likelihood 

ratio for low-performing students having low 

engagement in reading was higher than 1 in all 

the PISA countries. 

The U.S ratio was lower than that in 11 countries, 

and higher than that in 6 countries (exhibit 5). 

That is, in about one-third of the PISA countries, 

low performers were more likely to report 

low engagement in reading compared to their 

respective national averages than in the United 

States.

Sense of Belonging in School

Research studies have indicated that students’ 

sense of belonging in school may play an 

important role in promoting school success and 

preventing school dropouts (Roeser, Midgley, and 

Urdan 1996). PISA 2000 measured students’ 

feelings of membership in school through a 

summary index called “sense of belonging 

in school” by asking for students’ level of 

agreement (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, 

strongly agree) with the following statements 

about their feelings at school: 

• I make friends easily;

• I feel that I belong in school; 

• Other students like me; 

• I feel like an outsider; 

• I feel awkward and out of place; and

• I feel lonely at school.

Overall, the average index score for sense of 

belonging in the United States was -0.06. This 

was not measurably different from the OECD 

average value of zero (table B-13).17 Students in 

almost half of the other PISA 2000 countries (14 

of 30) reported a higher sense of belonging than 

Table 2. Number of PISA countries with 

data available for 15-year-old 

students scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading 

literacy scale, by selected student 

characteristics: 2000

Characteristic

Level 

1 or 

below

Engagement in reading

Low engagement in reading 31

Medium engagement in reading 31

High engagement in reading 31

Sense of belonging in school

Low sense of belonging in school 31

Medium sense of belonging in school 31

High sense of belonging in school 31

Effort and perseverance in schoolwork 

Low effort and perseverance in schoolwork 23

Medium effort and perseverance in schoolwork 23

High effort and perseverance in schoolwork 23

Skipping class 

Never skipped class 31

Skipped class 1 or 2 times a week 31

Skipped class 3 or more times a week 31

Missing school

Never missed school 31

Missed school 1 or 2 times a week 31

Missed school 3 or more times a week 31

NOTE: See the Description of Variables section 

in appendix A for more information about the 

characteristics.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student 

Questionnaire, 2000. 

17The reliability measure for the “Sense of Belonging in School” index was 0.86.
Findings From PISA 2000

23

� �� �� �� �� ���

������������������

�������������

������

������

�������������

��������������

�����������

������

�����

��������

������

�����������

������

����������

������������������

�����

�����

�������

�������

�������

������

��������

������

�������

�������

���������������

������

�������

�������

���������

������������

�������

���������������� �������

��������������

������������������

Figure 7. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on 

the combined reading literacy scale who had low engagement in reading, by 

country: 2000

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Engagement in reading is based on an index of student reports of the extent to which they agreed with 

items designed to measure engagement in reading, such as “I read only if I have to” and “I find it hard to finish 

books.” Students with index scores in the lowest quartile were categorized as having “low” engagement in reading 

(index value of -0.66 or lower). See the Description of Variables section in appendix B for more information about 

the index of engagement in reading. Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined 

reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to 

correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading 

scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD 

member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD 

countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. 

The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

24

Exhibit 5. PISA 2000 countries grouped by their relative likelihood ratios as compared to 

the United States, by selected student educational characteristics: 2000

Characteristic

Relative likelihood ratio

Higher than the United States Lower than the United States

Low engagement in 

reading

Australia Iceland Belgium

Canada Korea, Republic of Brazil

Czech Republic Norway Italy

Denmark Sweden Luxembourg

Finland Switzerland Mexico

Hungary Poland

Low sense of 

belonging in 

school

Australia Italy

Austria Japan

Belgium Korea, Republic of

Brazil Latvia

Czech Republic Luxembourg

Denmark Mexico

France Poland

Germany Russian Federation

Greece Spain

Iceland Switzerland

Ireland OECD Average

Low effort and 

perseverance in

schoolwork

Norway Austria

Liechtenstein Switzerland

Miss school 

frequently

Japan Austria Mexico

Brazil Norway

Denmark Poland

Greece Portugal

Hungary Russian Federation

Iceland Sweden

Latvia Switzerland

Luxembourg OECD average

Skip class 

frequently

Belgium Brazil

France Greece

Hungary Latvia

Iceland Mexico

Italy Portugal

Japan Russian Federation

Korea, Republic of Spain

Norway Switzerland

United Kingdom

Attend remedial 

courses in the test 

language regularly 

outside of school

Australia Brazil Mexico

Belgium France New Zealand

Ireland Germany Poland

Norway Hungary Spain

Sweden Latvia Switzerland

Luxembourg OECD average

NOTE: For more information about the selected variables, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A. 

Relative likelihood (risk) ratio is calculated across two groups: 1) low-performing students (scoring at level 1 or below) 

and 2) the overall 15-year-old student population (scoring at all proficiency levels: below level 1, level 1, level 2, level 

3, level 4, and level 5). A relative likelihood ratio greater than 1 implies that a particular characteristic is more likely to 

be observed among the low performers than for the overall 15-year-old-student population. A relative likelihood ratio 

less than 1 implies that a particular characteristic is less likely to be observed among the low performers than for the 

overall 15-year-old-student population. Private tutoring outside of school is not included among the student educational 

characteristics as the U.S likelihood ratio for this variable was not measurably different from 1. Includes PISA 2000 

countries that reported relative likelihood ratios higher than 1 in the student characteristics reported.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

25

their counterparts in the United States. Seven 

other countries reported a lower index value 

than the United States.

As with engagement in reading, index values 

for sense of belonging in school from all OECD 

countries were arrayed and cut points calculated 

for the bottom quarter and top quarter of 

students. Students with index values in the 

bottom quarter (value of -0.61 or lower) were 

categorized as having a “low” sense of belonging, 

and students with index values in the top quarter 

(value of 0.48 or higher) were categorized as 

having a “high” sense of belonging.

In the United States, 43 percent of students 

at level 1 or below reported a low sense of 

belonging, compared to 25 percent overall (table 

B-14). Hence, in the United States, the likelihood 

of a low-performing student having a low sense 

of belonging in school was 1.7 times the average 

likelihood of a student having a low sense of 

belonging (table B-23). In 28 of the other 30 PISA 

2000 countries, the relative likelihood ratio of a 

low-performing student having a low sense of 

belonging in school was higher than 1. However, 

in Finland and Sweden, the relative likelihood ratio 

was not different from 1; i.e., the proportion of 

low-performing students with a low sense of 

belonging was not different from the average.

Among the countries where the relative 

likelihood ratio of a low-performing student 

having a low sense of belonging was higher than 

1, the U.S. ratio was not lower than that in any of 

these countries, while it was higher than in over 

two-thirds of the countries (21) and the OECD 

average (exhibit 5). That is, in the United States, 

low performers were more likely to report a low 

sense of belonging in school compared to the U.S 

average than low performers in most other PISA 

countries.

Effort and Perseverance in Schoolwork

Of all of the variables that are believed to affect 

achievement, effort and perseverance are two 

that may be particularly within students’ control. 

Some educators stress that students’ effort and 

perseverance are their keys to success (Ablard 

and Lipschultz 1998; Elliot, McGregor, and 

Gable 1999; Samimy, Liu, and Matsuta 1994). 

In order to examine these factors in relation to 

achievement, PISA 2000 measured students’ 

level of effort and perseverance in schoolwork 

by asking how frequently (not at all, very little, to 

some extent, a lot) they 

• work as hard as possible; 

• keep working even if the material is 

difficult; 

• try to do their best to acquire the 

knowledge and skills taught; and

• put forth their best effort.

In the United States, the overall index value for 

effort and perseverance in schoolwork (-0.08) 

was not measurably different from the OECD 

average (table B-15).18 Nine of the other 22 PISA 

2000 countries reported higher average index 

values than the United States, while Latvia and 

the Republic of Korea had lower values.

As with the other indices, index values for effort 

and perseverance from all OECD countries were 

arrayed and cut points calculated for the bottom 

quarter and top quarter of students. Students 

with index values in the bottom quarter (value of 

-0.64 or lower) were categorized as having “low” 

effort and perseverance, and students with index 

values in the top quarter (value of 0.69 of higher) 

were categorized as having “high” effort and 

perseverance.

Forty-five percent of U.S. students at level 1 or 

below reported low effort and perseverance, 

higher than the 36 percent of students overall who 

reported this (figure 8; table B-16). Hence, in the 

United States, the likelihood of a low-performing 

student having low effort and perseverance in 

schoolwork was 1.3 times the average likelihood of 

a student having low effort and perseverance (table 

B-23). The greater likelihood that low-performing 

students have low effort and perseverance was 

also the case in 19 other PISA 2000 countries 

with data available. However, in three countries 

18The reliability measure for the “Effort and Perseverance in Schoolwork” index was 0.83.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

26

� �� �� �� �� ���

������������������

�������������

������

������

�������������

�����������

������

��������

������

�����������

�������

�����������

������������������

�����

�������

�������

�������

��������

�������

�������

���������������

��������

�������

���������

������������

�������

���������������� �������

��������������

������������������

Figure 8. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on 

the combined reading literacy scale who had low effort and perseverance in 

schoolwork, by country: 2000

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 50 percent and is therefore not shown.

2The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Effort and perseverance in schoolwork is based on an index of student reports of the extent to which 

they agreed with items such as “I work as hard as possible” and “I keep working even if the material is difficult.” 

Students with index scores in the lowest quartile were categorized as having “low” effort and perseverance (value 

of -0.64 or lower). See the Description of Variables section in appendix B for more information about the index of 

effort and perseverance in schoolwork. In the United Kingdom, item response rates for students overall and at level 

1 or below are below 50 percent and are therefore not shown. Data for Canada, France, Greece, Japan, Poland, 

and Spain are not available. Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy 

scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a 

majority of items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified 

at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries 

with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed 

separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. The overall percentage 

refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

27

(Austria, Ireland, and Switzerland), the relative 

likelihood ratio of a low-performing student 

reporting low effort and perseverance was not 

measurably different from 1. In these countries, 

low performers were no more likely than students 

on average to report low effort and perseverance.

Among countries where the relative likelihood 

ratio of low-performing students having low 

effort and perseverance was higher than 1, the 

relative likelihood ratio was lower in the United 

States compared to Norway and Liechtenstein, 

but higher than in Austria and Switzerland 

(exhibit 5). In most countries, then, the extent 

to which low achievers report low effort and 

perseverance compared to their respective 

national averages was not measurably different 

from that in the United States.

Missing School and Skipping Class 

For most students, an important step to learning 

is attending school and classes regularly. 

Chronic absenteeism and truancy can disrupt 

the learning environment, are associated with 

delinquent behavior, and are related to lower 

achievement levels (Lamdin 1996; Reid 1999). 

PISA 2000 measured the frequency with which 

students missed school and skipped class by 

asking two questions: 

• How many times in the previous two 

weeks did you miss the entire school day?

• How many times in the previous two 

weeks did you skip a class? (note: count 

each skipped class separately)

Students’ responses were grouped into the 

categories never, one or two times, and three or 

more times. Within this section, all of the data 

presented are based on students’ reports from 

their activities within the past two weeks. In 

order to further facilitate discussion, the category 

response of “missed school three or more times 

in the past two weeks” is referred to as “missed 

school frequently,” while “skipped class three or 

more times in the past two weeks” is referred to 

as “skipped class frequently.”19

In the United States, 8 percent of students 

reported that they missed school frequently, 

which is not measurably different from the 

OECD percentage (9 percent) (figure 9; table 

B-17). Compared to the United States, fewer 

students in five countries reported missing 

school frequently, while in eight of the PISA 

2000 countries, more students reported missing 

school frequently. 

In the United States, 19 percent of U.S. 

students at level 1 or below missed school 

frequently. This was higher than the 8 percent 

of students reporting the same on average. 

Hence, in the United States, the likelihood of 

a low-performing student reporting missing 

school frequently was 2.4 times the average 

likelihood of a student reporting missing school 

frequently (table B-23). Low-performing 

students were more likely to miss school 

frequently compared to students on average 

in 28 of the other 30 PISA 2000 countries 

with data available. 

Among the countries where the relative 

likelihood ratio of a low-performing student 

reporting missing school frequently was higher 

than 1, the U.S. ratio was lower than that only 

in Japan, while it was higher than that in 15 

countries and the OECD average (exhibit 5). 

That is, low-performing students in Japan were 

more likely to report missing school frequently 

than low performers in the United States 

compared to the respective national averages. 

But low performers in the United States were 

more likely to report missing school frequently 

than students on average compared to low 

achievers in most OECD countries.

Five percent of U.S. students reported that 

they skipped class frequently. This was not 

different from the OECD average percentage 

(5 percent of students) (figure 10; table B-18). 

A higher percentage of students skipped class 

frequently in five countries compared to U.S. 

students, while a lower percentage skipped class 

frequently in eight other participating countries 

in PISA 2000.

19For more information about the missing school and skipping class variables, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

28

� �� �� �� ��

������������������

�������������

������

������

�������������

��������������

�����������

������

�����

��������

������

������

�����������

������

����������

������������������

�����

�����

�������

�������

�������

������

��������

������

�������

�������

���������������

������

�������

�������

���������

������������

�������

���������������� �������

��������������

������������������

Figure 9. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who missed school frequently, by country: 2000

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Students who reported missing school three or more times in the 2 weeks prior to taking the assessment 

were classified as missing school frequently. For more information about the missing school variable, see the 

Description of Variables section in appendix B. Students were classified into reading levels according to their 

combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able 

to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading 

scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD 

member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD 

countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. 

The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

29

� �� �� �� ��

������������������

�������������

������

������

�������������

��������������

�����������

������

�����

��������

������

������

�����������

������

����������

������������������

�����

�����

�������

�������

�������

������

��������

������

�������

�������

���������������

������

�������

�������

���������

������������

�������

���������������� �������

��������������

������������������

Figure 10. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who skipped class frequently, by country: 2000

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Students who reported skipping class three or more times in the 2 weeks prior to taking the assessment 

were classified as skipping class frequently. For more information about the skipping class variable, see the 

Description of Variables section in appendix B. Students were classified into reading levels according to their 

combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able 

to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading 

scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD 

member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD 

countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. 

The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

30

Ten percent of U.S. students at level 1 or below 

reported that they skipped class frequently. This 

was greater than the 5 percent who reported 

the same overall. Hence, in the United States, 

the likelihood of a low-performing student 

reporting skipping class frequently was 1.8 times 

the average likelihood of a student reporting 

skipping class frequently (table B-23). This greater 

likelihood of low-performing students reporting 

skipping school frequently was the case in 26 

other PISA 2000 countries with data available.

Among the countries for which the relative 

likelihood of a low-performing student reporting 

skipping school frequently was higher than 

1, the U.S. ratio was lower than that in nine 

countries, while it was higher than that in eight 

countries (exhibit 5). As with missing school, 

Japanese low performers (along with those in 

eight other countries) were again more likely to 

report skipping school frequently compared to 

the Japanese average than low performers in the 

United States compared to the U.S. average. 

Learning Practices 

and Expectations

A unique aspect of PISA is its exploration 

of student learning practices outside of the 

curriculum or the school environment. This is 

reflected in a set of questions that inquires about 

whether students supplement training in school 

through classes of various types, such as remedial 

or special courses, private tutoring, or training 

designed to improve skills outside of school. 

Again, this section presents a profile of students 

who scored at level 1 or below based on their 

learning practices and expectations in the United 

States and compared with other countries. 

In the following three sections, students’ use of 

private tutoring and remedial courses in the test 

language outside of school are examined, as well 

as students’ job expectations. Table 3 provides 

information about the participating countries 

with data available for learning practices and 

expectations. For more information about the 

participating countries, see tables B-19, B-20, 

and B-21. 

Table 3. Number of PISA countries with 

data available for 15-year-old 

students scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading 

literacy scale, by selected student 

characteristics and career 

expectations: 2000

Characteristic

Level 

1 or 

below

Private tutoring outside of school

Never received private tutoring outside 

of school

28

Sometimes received private tutoring outside 

of school

28

Regularly received private tutoring outside 

of school

28

Remedial courses in the test language outside 

of school

Never attended remedial courses in the test 

language outside of school

24

Sometimes attended remedial courses in the 

test language outside of school

24

Regularly attended remedial courses in the 

test language outside of school

23

Student reports of job expectations

Armed forces 25

Clerks 30

Craft and related trade workers 30

Elementary occupations 29

Legislators, senior officials, and managers 30

Plant and machine operators, and assemblers 30

Professionals 30

Service workers, shop, and market sales workers 30

Skilled agricultural and fishery workers 29

Technicians and associate professionals 30

NOTE: See the Description of Variables section 

in appendix A for more information about the 

characteristics.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student 

Questionnaire, 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

31

Private Tutoring Outside of School

Studies have found that students who obtain 

private tutoring become more invested in the 

learning process and their achievement levels 

subsequently often increase (Merrett 1998; 

Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik 1982). PISA 2000 sought 

to explore the use of private tutoring outside 

of school by students through the following 

question:

• During the last three years, have you 

attended private tutoring outside of your 

school to improve your learning?

Students were required to report how frequently 

they attended private tutoring outside of school 

(regularly, sometimes, or never). All of the data 

presented are based on student reports of their 

activities over the course of the previous three 

years, from ages approximately 12 to 15. For the 

United States, and for most countries in PISA, the 

previous three years would include grades seven 

through ten. 20

On average in the overall 15-year-old student 

population, 3 percent of U.S. students reported 

receiving private tutoring regularly outside of 

school, which is lower than the OECD average of 

8 percent (figure 11; table B-19). Internationally, 

percentages ranged from 1 percent in Denmark, 

Finland, and Sweden to 22 percent in Spain. 

Relative to the United States, more students 

received private tutoring regularly in 19 of the 

participating countries, while fewer students 

received private tutoring regularly in 3 of the 

countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden).

In the United States and 17 other PISA 2000 

countries with data available, there was no 

measurable difference between the proportion 

of students who received tutoring regularly 

at level 1 or below compared to the average 

(table B-19). Hence, in the United States, the 

likelihood of a low-performing student attending 

private tutoring regularly was not measurably 

different from the average likelihood of a student 

attending private tutoring regularly (table B-23). 

There were 7 countries (and the OECD average) 

where the likelihood of a low-performing student 

attending private tutoring regularly was smaller 

than the average likelihood of a student attending 

private tutoring regularly. In contrast, there were 

3 countries (Japan, Luxembourg, and Mexico) 

where the likelihood of a low-performing student 

attending private tutoring regularly was higher 

than the average likelihood of a student attending 

private tutoring regularly.

Remedial Courses in the Test Language 

Outside of School 

In addition to private tutoring, PISA 2000 also 

reported on students’ enrollment in remedial 

courses specifically in the test language outside 

of school by asking the following question: 

• During the last three years, have you 

attended remedial courses in the test 

language outside of school to improve 

your learning?

Students were asked to report how frequently 

they attended these remedial courses (regularly, 

sometimes, or never).21

In the United States, on average, 1 percent of 

students reported taking remedial courses 

outside of school in the test language regularly 

(table B-20). This was lower than the OECD 

average percentage (2 percent), and lower than 

the percentage of students in 11 of the other 23 

PISA 2000 countries with data available.

In the United States, a higher percentage 

of students at level 1 or below (3 percent) 

attended remedial classes in the test language 

outside of school regularly compared to the 

average (1 percent). Hence, in the United States, 

the likelihood of a low-performing student 

attending remedial courses regularly was 

3.4 times the average likelihood of a student 

attending remedial courses regularly (table B-23). 

The greater likelihood of a low-performing 

student taking remedial classes regularly 

compared to students overall was the case in 

the majority of PISA 2000 countries with data 

available (19 of the 24 countries). 

20For more information about the private tutoring outside of school variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A.

21The test language was English for students in the United States.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

32

Figure 11. Percentage of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or below on the 

combined reading literacy scale who received private tutoring regularly outside 

of school, by country: 2000

� �� �� �� ��

������������������

�������������

������

������

�������������

��������������

�����������

������

�����

��������

������

�����������

������

����������

������������������

�����

�����

�������

�������

�������

��������

������

�������

�������

���������������

������

�������

���������

������������

�������

���������������� �������

��������������

������������������

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Students who reported receiving private tutoring regularly in the 3 years prior to taking the assessment 

were classified as receiving private tutoring regularly. For more information about the private tutoring variable, 

see the Description of Variables section in appendix B. Data for Austria, Greece, and Norway are not available. 

Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In 

order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that 

level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The 

OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because 

PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the 

OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate 

for the overall 15-year-old student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

33

Among the countries where the relative 

likelihood ratio of a low-performing student 

taking remedial courses regularly was greater 

than 1, the U.S. ratio was lower than in 5 

countries and higher than in 11 countries 

and the OECD average (exhibit 5). That is, 

compared to the average, U.S. low performers 

were more likely to report taking remedial 

classes regularly than was the case in about 

half the PISA countries.

Student Reports of Job Expectations

Another way to explore the characteristics of 

low achievers is to examine the ways in which 

they assess their own abilities and project 

themselves into the future, particularly with 

respect to occupational expectations. PISA 2000 

asked students the following: 

• What kind of job do you expect to have 

when you are about 30 years old? Write 

the job title.

The student responses were classified using 

the International Standard Classification 

of Occupations (ISCO) into the 10 major 

occupational groups shown in appendix A, 

exhibit A-1.

Missing data have not been explicitly accounted 

for or imputed in the analyses for this report. 

Categories where more than 15 percent of the 

student responses are missing are flagged in 

tables B-21 and B-22. In categories where more 

than 50 percent of the responses are missing, 

the data are not presented in the data tables. 

Particular attention to the problem of missing 

data should be considered when analyzing the 

job expectation data.

In the United States, the most frequently 

reported category among expected jobs was 

that of a “professional” (59 percent), followed 

by “technician and associate professional” (18 

percent), and “service worker, shop, and market 

sales worker” (8 percent) (table B-21). A higher 

percentage of U.S. 15-year-old students expected 

to be a professional compared to the OECD 

average. Conversely, a lower percentage of U.S. 

15-year-old students expected to be a craft and 

related trade worker, worker in the elementary 

occupations,22 or service worker, shop, or market 

sales worker compared to the corresponding 

OECD averages.

In the United States, there was a higher percentage 

of low-performing students expecting to hold a job 

in the elementary occupations or be employed as a 

service worker, technician and associate professional, 

plant and machine operator and assembler, clerk, 

or craft and related trade worker than the average 

(table B-22).23 In the United States, the relative 

likelihood of a low-performing student expecting to 

be a clerk or a craft and related trade worker was 

more than 2 times the average likelihood (2.3 and 

2.4, respectively) (table B-25). The relative likelihood 

of a U.S. low-achieving student expecting to be a 

plant and machine operator and assembler was 3.4 

times the average likelihood. There was also a higher 

likelihood of students expecting to be a technician 

and associate professional (1.2), service worker (1.8), 

or work in the elementary occupations (1.5) among 

U.S. low performers. 

Conversely, in the United States, 38 percent of lowperforming students expected to be a professional, 

compared to 59 percent of students overall (table 

B-22). At level 1 or below, 3 percent expected 

to work as a legislator, senior official, or manager, 

compared to 4 percent of students for the overall 

15-year-old student population. Hence, the relative 

likelihood ratio of students expecting to be a 

professional or to work as a legislator, senior official 

or manager was 0.7 and 0.8, respectively (table 

B-25). This implies that low-performing students 

were less likely to expect to work as a professional, 

legislator, senior official, or manager than the average.

22Elementary occupations consist mainly of simple and routine tasks that mainly require the use of hand-held tools and often some physical effort. 

Most occupations in this major group require skills at the first ISCO skill level (a primary education, which generally begins at the age of 5, 6, or 7 and 

lasts about 5 years) (ILO 1990). For more information about the job expectations variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A.

23Item response rates for job expectations of students overall and for students at level 1 or below are below 85 percent. Missing data have not 

been explicitly accounted for.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

34
Findings From PISA 2000

35

Conclusion

In the United States, a low performer was 

more likely to be male, come from a low-SES 

background, have two foreign-born parents or 

be foreign born, have parents who have less 

than a college education, or speak a language 

other than the test language most of the time at 

home compared to what is observed on average. 

A low-performing student in the United States 

was also more likely to have low engagement 

in reading, a low sense of belonging in school, 

and a low level of effort and perseverance in 

schoolwork compared to what was observed 

on average. Similarly, students who regularly 

attended remedial classes in the test language 

outside of school or regularly missed school or 

skipped classes were more likely to be observed 

among the low performers than on average.

However, low performers in many other 

countries also exhibited these characteristics 

(exhibits 4 and 5). Indeed, in some countries, 

low performers had an even greater likelihood 

of exhibiting certain characteristics than in the 

United States. In seven countries, for instance, 

the likelihood of a low performer being male 

was greater than in the United States (while 

in five countries, it was lower). In a few 

countries, similar variables seemed to be more 

or less strongly related to low performance 

than in others. For instance, compared to their 

national averages, in Austria and Germany, low 

performers were more likely to have foreign-born 

parents, be foreign born themselves, or speak 

a language other than the test language than 

low performers in the United States. This could 

suggest that the United States is relatively more 

successful in achieving academic success with 

immigrant students than these countries are. It 

could also suggest differences among immigrant 

communities, or some other factors could be 

at work. In any case, it could be an area worth 

further examination. 

However, in a number of categories (having low 

SES, less than a college education, low sense 

of belonging in school, and missing school 

frequently), U.S. low performers had a greater 

likelihood of showing these characteristics than 

the majority of PISA countries. These may be 

areas in which further research is warranted, to 

uncover what factors are associated with these 

characteristics and what policies or strategies 

other countries may be using to ameliorate them.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

36
Findings From PISA 2000

37

References

Ablard, K.E., and Lipschultz, R.E. (1998). SelfRegulated Learning in High-Achieving Students: 

Relations to Advanced Reasoning, Achievement 

Goals, and Gender. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 90: 94-101.

Braswell, J.S., Lutkus, A.D., Griggs, W.S., Santapau, 

S.L., Tay-Lim, B., and Johnson, M. (2001). The 

Nations Report Card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 

2001-517). U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Burgess, S.R., Hecht, S.A., and Lonigan, C.J. 

(2002). Relationships of the Home Literacy 

Environment (HLE) to the Development 

of Reading-Related Abilities: A One-Year 

Longitudinal Study. Reading Research Quarterly, 

37(4): 408-426.

Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., and Kulik, C.C. (1982). 

Education Outcomes of Tutoring: A MetaAnalysis of Findings. American Educational 

Research Journal, 19(2): 237-248.

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 Office.

Elliot, A.J., McGregor, H.A., and Gable, S. (1999). 

Achievement Goals, Study Strategies, and Exam 

Performances: A Mediational Analysis. Journal 

of Educational Psychology, 91(3): 549-563.

Ganzeboom, H.B.G., and Treiman, D.J. (with De 

Leeuw, J.). (1992). A Standard International 

Socio-Economic Index of Occupation Status. 

Social Science Research, 21(1): 1-56.

Gonzales, P., Calsyn, C., Jocelyn, L., Mak, K., 

Kastberg, D., Arafeh, S., Williams, T., and Tsen, 

W. (2000). Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons 

of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and 

Science Achievement From a U.S. Perspective, 

1995 and 1999 (NCES 2001-028). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.

Hernandez, D.J. (1993). America’s Children: 

Resources from Family, Government, and the 

Economy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

International Labor Organization (ILO). (1990). 

International Standard Classification of 

Occupations—ISCO-88. Geneva, 1988.

Lamdin, D.J. (1996). Evidence of Students’ 

Attendance as an Independent Variable in 

Education Production Functions. Journal of 

Educational Research, 89(3): 155-162.

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-YearOlds in Reading, Mathematics, and Science 

Literacy (NCES 2002-115). U.S. Department 

of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office.

Merrett, F. (1998). Helping Readers Who 

Have Fallen Behind. Support for Learning, 

13(2): 59-64.

Mullis, I., Martin, M., Fierros, E., Goldberg, A., 

and Stemler, S. (2000). Gender Differences 

in Achievement. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston 

College.

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 Programme for International Student 

Assessment. Paris: Author.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

38

Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD). (2002). PISA 2000 

Technical Report. Paris: Author.

Reid, K. (1999). Truancy and Schools. London: 

Routledge.

Roeser, N.R., Midgley, C., and Urdan, T.C. (1996). 

Perceptions of the School Psychological 

Environment and Early Adolescents’ 

Psychological and Behavioral Functioning in 

School: The Mediating Role of Goals and 

Belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 

88(3): 408-422.

Samimy, K., Liu, J., and Matsuta, K. (1994). 

Gambare, Amae, and Giri: A Cultural 

Explanation for Japanese Children’s Success in 

Mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 

13(3): 261-271.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., and Griffin, P. (Eds.). 

(1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young 

Children. Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press.

United Nations (UN), International Monetary 

Fund (IMF), World Bank, and Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECD). (2000). A Better World for 

All: Progress Towards the International 

Development Goals. Paris: Author.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

the Census (2003). Table: Language Use, 

English Ability, and Linguistic Isolation for 

the Population 5 to 17 Years by State: 2000. 

Summary File 3, Tables P19, PCT13, and 

PCT14.

Warm, T.A. (1985). Weighted Maximum 

Likelihood Estimation of Ability in Item 

Response Theory Using Tests of Finite Length. 

Technical Report CGI-TR-85-08. Oklahoma 

City: U.S. Coast Guard Institute.

West, J., Denton, K., and Reaney, L. (2000). 

The Kindergarten Year (NCES 2001-023). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.

Westat. (2000). WesVar 4.0 User’s Guide. 

Rockville, MD: Author.

Williams, T., Levine, D., Jocelyn, L., Butler, P., 

and Haynes, J. (2000). Mathematics and 

Science in the Eighth Grade: Findings from the 

Third International Mathematics and Science 

Study (NCES 2000-014). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics.
Findings From PISA 2000

39
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

40

Appendix A: 

Technical Notes
Findings From PISA 2000

41

The Program for International 

Student Assessment of 2000

The Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA) of 2000 was the first in a 

new system of international assessments that 

focus on 15-year-olds’ capabilities in reading 

literacy, mathematics literacy, and science 

literacy. PISA assesses how well prepared 

students are for life beyond the classroom 

by focusing on the application of knowledge 

and skills in everyday situations. As such, PISA 

results reflect the influences of education 

systems and societies on young people up to 

the age of 15. PISA is being implemented on 

a 3-year cycle with each assessment cycle 

focusing on one particular subject. In 2000 

the primary focus was on reading literacy, with 

minor emphases on mathematics and science 

literacy. PISA is intended to complement the 

portrait of U.S. performance obtained from 

other studies and to provide a new perspective 

on U.S. education in an international context. 

This appendix describes features of the PISA 

2000 survey methodology, including sample 

design, test design, scoring, data reliability, and 

analysis variables. For further details about the 

assessment and any of the topics discussed 

here, see NCES’s PISA 2000 User’s Guide (NCES 

2004-006) or the OECD’s PISA 2000 Technical 

Report (OECD 2002).

PISA 2000 developed quality standards, 

procedures, instruments, and verification 

mechanisms to ensure that national samples 

yielded comparable data. Experts from 

the PISA Consortium monitored the sample 

selection process in each participating country.1 

PISA’s data quality standards required minimum 

participation rates for educational institutions 

as well as for students. These standards 

were established to minimize the potential for 

response biases.

Sample Design 

and Response Rates

A minimum response target of 85 percent 

was required for initially selected educational 

institutions. In instances in which the initial 

response rate of educational institutions was 

between 65 and 85 percent, an acceptable 

school response rate could still be achieved 

through the use of replacement schools.

PISA 2000 also required a minimum participation 

rate of 80 percent of students within participating 

educational institutions (sampled and 

replacement). A student was considered to be 

a participant only if he or she participated in the 

first testing session. The minimum participation 

rate had to be met at the national level, not 

necessarily for each participating educational 

institution.

In the United States, the public and private 

schools selected for PISA constituted a nationally 

representative sample of all schools in the country 

enrolling 15-year-old students. A three-stage 

sampling design was implemented: the first 

stage was a sample of primary sampling units 

(geographical areas referred to as PSUs); the 

second stage was a sample of schools within PSUs; 

and the third stage was a sample of students from 

the set of all students enrolled in the school who 

were born in the calendar year 1984.

In the first stage of sampling, 52 PSUs were 

selected. During the second stage, a total of 220 

schools were selected from within the sampled 

PSUs. International requirements specified that 

a minimum of 150 schools be selected. This 

number was increased to 220 in the United 

States to offset school nonresponse, design 

effects from the three-stage design, and design 

effects from oversampling of high-minority 

schools. The selected schools were located in 

33 different U.S. states.

1The PISA Project Consortium consists of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), the Netherlands National Institute for Educational 

Measurement (CITO), Educational Testing Service (ETS, USA), the National Institute for Educational Policy Research (NIER, Japan), and Westat (USA). 

ACER coordinated the Consortium, under contract to the OECD. In the United States, Westat carried out the PISA assessment.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

42

The school frame was developed from two 

lists. Regular public, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

Department of Defense Education Activity schools 

were obtained from the 1999 list of schools 

maintained by Quality Education Data, Inc. (QED). 

Catholic and other nonpublic schools were obtained 

from the Private School Universe Survey (PSS) 

developed for NCES’s 1999–2000 Schools and 

Staffing Survey. The PSS is almost a census: Most 

of the private schools in the United States are fully 

enumerated without any sampling. The PSS has a 

small area probability component, so that the private 

schools from this component are sampled rather than 

fully enumerated. The PSS was treated as the private 

school frame for PISA 2000, and the PSS sampling 

weights (called PSSWGT below) were included in 

PISA frame measures of size for private schools from 

the area probability component of the PSS. 

The U.S. PISA 2000 school frame consists of 

all public schools on the most current QED 

frame and all private schools on the PSS frame 

contained within the 52 PSUs in the PISA sample 

that have at least one of the following grades: 8th, 

9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th.

2 The school sample was a 

systematic probability proportional to measure 

of size sample of 220 schools from this frame. 

The assigned measures of size have the following 

factors (explained in detail below):

• AE: an estimate of the number of ageeligible students (“15-year-olds”: those 

born in 1984) in each frame school;

• the PSSWGT factor for private schools in 

the PSS area probability sample;

• the inverse of the PISA PSU probability 

of selection (to account for first-stage 

sampling);

• a doubling factor for public schools with 

more than 15 percent Black and Hispanic 

students (to achieve an oversample of 

these schools); and

• an adjustment factor for schools with 

small numbers of age-eligible students 

(to prevent students from those schools 

from having too-large relative weights, 

which increases sampling variability).

The certainty and large noncertainty PSUs 

accounted for 22 PSUs on the sampling frame 

and 16 PSUs in the PISA PSU sample. There were 

1,005 PSUs remaining on the frame, all with 

1990 populations of less than 1.8 million. These 

1,005 PSUs were assigned to 72 sampling strata, 

which were paired into 36 stratum pairs, with 

the primary stratifiers being National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP) region and 

metropolitan/nonmetropolitan PSU status.

As a supplement to the PISA school sample 

described above, replacement schools were 

selected from the unsampled schools on 

the sampling frame. Each school in the 

original sample was assigned up to two 

replacement schools selected from the set of 

“neighboring” schools on the sampling frame. 

As the sampling frame was ordered by school 

characteristics, these neighboring schools had 

similar characteristics to the sampled school, 

and their addition to the sample could reduce 

the nonresponse bias incurred from lack of 

cooperation of the sampled school.

Ten of the 220 schools in the original sample 

were ineligible because they did not have any 

students born in 1984, and a further 82 schools 

refused to participate, leaving 128 schools 

before replacement. Thirty-two replacement 

schools agreed to participate with the result that 

160 schools in total agreed to participate in the 

study. Following data collection, decisions by the 

international Technical Advisory Group (made up 

of technical advisors from the PISA Consortium) 

reduced the number of “participating” schools 

based on the student response rates within 

schools. Schools with more than 50 percent 

student participation were classified as 

“responding schools.” Schools in which 25 to 

50 percent of the sampled students participated 

were classified as “partially responding.” Schools 

with less than 25 percent student participation 

were treated as “nonresponding,” and data 

from these schools were deleted from the 

database. In the United States, the number of 

(original/replacement) schools falling into these 

2A small number of 15-year-olds are enrolled in schools that end with the seventh grade, and these students were not covered in the PISA frame. 

The percentage of these students is negligible: Estimates from the Current Population Survey indicate that fewer than .05 percent of 15-year-olds 

are in the seventh grade or below, and most schools with a seventh grade also contain an eighth grade and are represented on the PISA frame. The 

undercoverage rate resulting from the exclusion of these schools is therefore well below .05 percent.
Findings From PISA 2000

43

categories was as follows: responding (116/29); 

partially responding (7/1); and nonresponding 

(5/2). For the purpose of calculating school 

response rates, only the 145 responding schools 

(116 original plus 29 replacement) were counted. 

On this basis, the school response rate before 

replacement was 56 percent. The weighted 

school response rate before replacement is given 

by the formula

WiEi

WiEi

= i Y

i (Y N)

������������������������

�����������������������









where Y denotes the set of responding original 

sample schools with age-eligible students, N 

denotes the set of eligible nonresponding original 

sample schools, Wi denotes the base weight for 

school i, Wi = 1/Pi , where Pi denotes the school 

selection probability for school i, and Ei denotes 

the enrollment size of age-eligible students, as 

indicated on the sampling frame. 

The school response rate after replacement in the 

United States became 70 percent and is given by 

the formula 

WiEi

WiEi

= i

i(Y N)

������������������������ (Y �) ����������������������

where Y denotes the set of responding 

original sample schools, R denotes the set of 

responding replacement schools, for which the 

corresponding original sample school was eligible 

but was nonresponding, N denotes the set of 

eligible refusing original sample schools, Wi

denotes the base weight for school i, Wi = 1/Pi , 

where Pi denotes the school selection probability 

for school i, and for weighted rates, Ei denotes 

the enrollment size of age-eligible students, as 

indicated on the sampling frame.

In the third stage of sampling, a total of 4,752 

students were sampled from the 145 responding 

schools. Eligible students were defined as those 

born in 1984 and in each school a random 

sample of up to 35 of these eligible students 

was selected. Some 221 of these students 

were subsequently classified as ineligible and/or 

were withdrawn. Exclusion decisions by schools 

resulted in a further 211 students being excluded 

from the assessment. The third-stage sampling 

plan provided for sampling from all 15-year-old 

students within a school. Some of the selected 

students could have an Individualized Education 

Program (IEP) or be identified by the school as 

limited English proficient (LEP). School staff who 

were knowledgeable about the schools’ IEP/LEP 

students reviewed the list of selected schools to 

determine whether any of them had an IEP or 

were identified as LEP. School staff identified 

those students that they felt were unable to 

meaningfully participate in the assessment. Not 

all IEP/LEP students were excluded—the following 

guidelines were used to determine which 

students would participate:

• Functionally disabled students. These 

are students who are permanently

physically disabled in such a way that 

they cannot perform in the testing 

situation. Functionally disabled students 

who can respond were to be included in 

the testing. Any sampled student who is 

temporarily disabled such that she/he 

cannot participate in the assessment was 

considered absent from the assessment.

• Students with mental or emotional 

disabilities. These are students who 

are considered in the professional opinion 

of the school principal or by other 

qualified staff members to be educable 

mentally retarded or who have been 

psychologically tested as such. This 

category includes students who are 

emotionally or mentally unable to follow 

even the general instructions of the 

test. Students were not excluded solely 

because of poor academic performance 

or normal disciplinary problems.

• Students with limited proficiency in 

the test language (English). These 

are students who are unable to read or 

speak the language of the test (English) 

and would be unable to overcome the 

language barrier in the test situation. 

Typically, a student who received less 

than 1 year of instruction in the language 

of the test was excluded; others were 

not.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

44

The students excluded followed the guideline 

categories as follows: 39 percent were students 

with mental or emotional disabilities, 33 percent 

had limited English language proficiency, 24 

percent were functionally disabled, and 4 

percent were excluded for other reasons, 

including being home-schooled or participating 

temporarily in a drug rehabilitation program. In 

line with the internationally specified procedures, 

no special attempts were made to accommodate 

students with physical disabilities over and above 

those provided by the school itself.

The result of this attrition due to ineligibility, 

withdrawal, or exclusion was that 4,320 

students were eligible to take the assessment. 

Of these, 620 students failed to take the 

assessment due to absence and/or parent/

student refusals. In total, then, 3,700 students 

from the 145 responding schools were 

assessed. The weighted number of students 

assessed, expressed as a percentage of the 

weighted number of eligible students, gave the 

student response rate of 85 percent, a rate 

which exceeds the PISA international standard 

of 80 percent. In addition, 146 students in 

the partially responding schools took the 

assessment, giving a total of 3,846 students 

taking the PISA assessment in the United 

States. All 3,846 students are included in the 

international database.

While the student response rate exceeded both 

NCES and PISA standards, the school response 

rate of 56 percent before replacement failed 

to meet these standards. In the case of PISA, 

a rate of 65 percent was required. The United 

Kingdom and the Netherlands also fell below the 

PISA standard for response rates. Each nation 

undertook analyses designed to examine the 

extent of bias, if any, introduced by this level of 

nonresponse. Since assessment data are not 

available for the nonresponding schools, the 

analysis of the PISA data for the United States 

compared participants and nonparticipants 

in the original and original plus replacement 

samples using logistic regression to predict 

participation. The predictors in question were 

sampling frame school variables with a history of 

association with student achievement in various 

national assessments—region, metropolitan/

nonmetropolitan status, public/private 

sector, type of school, percentage minority 

enrollment, percent eligible for free lunch, 

estimated number of 15-year-old students, 

and school grade span. These analyses 

indicate that there are differences between 

responding and nonresponding schools in 

some of these respects. Region, metropolitan/

nonmetropolitan status, percentage minority 

enrollment, and percentage eligible for free 

lunch were found to be significant predictors of 

school nonresponse. In addition, there was a 

nonlinear relationship with minority (Black and 

Hispanic) enrollment—schools with relatively 

high, and relatively low, minority enrollment 

were considerably more likely to participate 

than those with intermediate levels of minority 

enrollment. While the implications of these 

analyses for the direction of any resulting bias 

achievement are not entirely clear, an attempt 

was made to minimize any bias by incorporating 

the four variables in question into the adjustment 

for school nonresponse that is a component 

of the sampling weights. In the judgment of 

the international Technical Advisory Group, this 

was sufficient to ensure that any remaining bias 

was likely to be minimal and hence that the 

data for the United States were included in the 

international database. A similar judgment was 

applied to the analyses conducted by the United 

Kingdom, but not by the Netherlands.

Schools were contacted again approximately 

1 week before the assessment to select the 

student sample and arrange for assessment 

space in the school. Assessments were 

conducted in the United States in the spring of 

2000 by trained test administration field staff 

that visited each of the participating schools 

and administered both the assessments and 

the questionnaires.

Table A-1 provides summary information on 

the samples of all countries. A more detailed 

presentation can be found in the PISA 2000 

Technical Report (OECD 2002).
Findings From PISA 2000

45

Table A-1. Coverage of target population, student and school samples, and participation 

rates in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), by country: 

2000

Country Total population 

of 15-year-olds 

(number)

Percent

Coverage of 

15-year-old 

population

 Coverage 

of national 

desired 

population

Overall 

student 

exclusion rate

OECD countries

Australia 266,878 86 98 2

Austria 95,041 75 99 1

Belgium1 121,121 91 98 2

Belgium (Flemish) 71,074 86 98 2

Belgium (French) 49,289 99 97 3

Canada 403,803 86 95 5

Czech Republic 134,627 93 98 2

Denmark 53,693 89 97 3

Finland 66,571 94 98 2

France 788,387 93 97 3

Germany 927,473 89 98 2

Greece 128,175 87 99 1

Hungary 120,759 89 99 1

Iceland 4,062 95 98 2

Ireland 65,339 86 97 5

Italy 584,417 87 98 2

Japan 1,490,000 97 98 2

Korea 712,812 81 100 #

Luxembourg 4,556 91 91 9

Mexico 2,127,504 45 100 #

Netherlands 178,924 88 96 4

New Zealand 54,220 86 95 5

Norway 52,165 95 97 3

Poland2 665,500 81 90 10

Portugal 132,325 76 97 3

Spain 462,082 86 97 3

Sweden 100,940 93 95 5

Switzerland 81,350 89 98 2

United Kingdom3 731,743 88 95 5

England 603,100 93 95 5

Northern Ireland 26,043 99 96 4

Scotland 65,200 87 98 2

United States 3,876,000 81 96 4

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 3,464,330 69 81 19

Latvia 38,000 79 96 4

Liechtenstein 415 78 99 1

Russian Federation 2,402,000 82 99 1

See notes at end of table.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

46

Table A-1. Coverage of target population, student and school samples, and participation 

rates in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), by country: 

2000—Continued

Country

Percent

Weighted 

school 

participation 

rate before 

replacement

Weighted 

school 

participation 

rate after 

replacement

Weighted 

student 

participation 

rate after 

replacement

Number of 

participating 

schools after 

replacement

Number of 

participating 

students

OECD countries

Australia 81 94 84 228 5,176

Austria 99 100 92 213 4,745

Belgium1 69 86 93 214 6,670

Belgium (Flemish) 62 80 95 119 3,890

Belgium (French) 80 94 91 95 2,780

Canada 88 93 85 1,098 29,687

Czech Republic 95 99 93 227 5,365

Denmark 84 95 92 223 4,235

Finland 97 100 93 155 4,864

France 95 95 91 174 4,673

Germany 91 91 86 213 5,073

Greece 84 100 97 139 3,644

Hungary 99 99 95 193 4,887

Iceland 100 100 87 130 3,372

Ireland 86 88 86 135 3,854

Italy 98 100 93 170 4,984

Japan 82 90 96 135 5,256

Korea 100 100 99 146 4,982

Luxembourg 93 93 89 23 3,528

Mexico 93 100 94 182 4,600

Netherlands 27 55 84 100 2,503

New Zealand 78 86 88 152 3,667

Norway 86 92 89 176 4,147

Poland2 79 83 88 126 3,654

Portugal 95 95 86 145 4,585

Spain 95 100 92 185 6,214

Sweden 100 100 88 159 4,416

Switzerland 92 96 95 282 6,100

United Kingdom3 61 82 81 349 9,340

England 59 82 81 148 4,120

Northern Ireland 71 79 86 113 2,849

Scotland 80 82 78 88 2,371

United States 56 70 85 145 3,846

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 97 98 87 318 4,893

Latvia — — — 153 3,920

Liechtenstein 100 100 97 11 314

Russian Federation 99 99 96 238 6,701

—Not available.

#Rounds to zero.

1The sampling numbers for Belgium exceed the sum of the two parts because German Belgium is also included in 

these numbers.

2Primary schools in Poland were not randomly sampled and therefore these students are not included.

3The sampling numbers for the United Kingdom exceed the sum of the three parts because Wales is also 

included in these numbers.

3Brazillian students in grades 5 and 6 were excluded.

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

Life—First Results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. Paris: Author.
Findings From PISA 2000

47

Quality Assurance

PISA 2000 emphasized the use of standardized 

procedures in all countries. The PISA Consortium 

provided comprehensive manuals to explain 

the survey’s implementation, including precise 

instructions for the work of school coordinators 

and scripts for test administrators for use in testing 

sessions. The quality and linguistic equivalence of 

instruments was ensured by providing countries 

with source versions of the assessment instruments 

in two languages (English and French) and 

recommending countries prepare and consolidate 

independent translations from both source 

versions, providing precise translation guidelines 

that included a description on the features each 

item was measuring and statistical analysis from 

the field trial. In cases where one source 

language was used, independent translations were 

required and discrepancies reconciled. The PISA 

Consortium verified the national translation and 

adaptation of all instrumentation. Additionally, 

members of the PISA Consortium visited all 

national centers to review data collection 

procedures, and members of the PISA Consortium 

visited a randomly selected subsample of 25 

percent of the educational institutions. For a 

detailed description of the quality assurance 

procedures, see the OECD’s technical report on 

PISA 2000 (OECD 2002).

Data Entry and 

Cleaning Procedures

Country representatives were required to 

submit their national data in KeyQuest® 2000, 

the generic data entry package developed by 

Consortium staff and preconfigured to include 

the data entry forms.

The data were verified at several points from 

the time of data entry. Validation rules (or 

range checks) were specified for each variable 

defined in KeyQuest®, and a variable datum 

was only accepted if it satisfied prespecified 

validation rules. To prevent duplicate records, 

a set of variables assigned to an instrument 

were identified as primary keys. For the student 

test booklets, stratum, school, and student 

identifications were the primary keys.

Because of the potential impact of PISA results 

and the scrutiny to which the data were likely to 

be put, it was essential that no dubious records 

remained in the data files. During cleaning as 

many dubious records as possible were identified, 

and through a process of extensive discussion 

between each country representative and the 

data processing center at the Australian Council 

for Educational Research (ACER), an effort was 

made to correct and resolve all data issues. When 

no adequate solution was found, the offending 

data records were deleted.

Unresolved inconsistencies in student and 

school identifications also led to the deletion of 

records in the database. Unsolved systematic 

errors for a particular item were replaced by 

not applicable codes. For instance, if countries 

reported a mistranslation or misprint in the 

national version of a cognitive booklet, data for 

the variables were recoded as not applicable 

and were not used in the analyses. Finally, 

errors or inconsistencies for particular students 

and particular variables were replaced by not 

applicable codes.

Confidentiality and 

Disclosure Limitations

The PISA 2000 data are hierarchical and include 

school data and student data from these schools. 

The confidentiality analyses are designed to 

provide reasonable assurance that public-use 

data files will not allow identification of individual 

schools or students when compared against 

public data collections. Disclosure limitation 

focused on the identification and masking 

of potential disclosure-risk PISA schools by 

comparing the study variables with QED, CCD, 

or PSS data.

Test Development

The development of the PISA 2000 assessment 

instruments was an interactive process among 

the PISA Consortium, various expert committees, 

and OECD members. The intention was to reflect 

the national, cultural, and linguistic variety among 

OECD countries. The assessments included 

material selected from among items submitted by 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

48

participating countries as well as items that were 

developed by the Consortium’s test developers. 

Each item, or question, was rated by each country 

on potential cultural, gender, or other type 

of bias. A small prepilot was conducted in a 

limited number of countries prior to a field trial, 

which was conducted in all countries in 1999. 

Approximately 120 units (passages or pictures with 

related questions) were developed for the field 

trial, including more than 800 reading items. The 

field trial included 69 units with 342 items, and the 

2000 reading assessment included 37 units with 

141 items. The mathematics instrument included 

32 items; the science instrument included 32 items.

The assessment instruments included curricular 

and noncurricular components following the 

framework specifications defined by subject 

matter experts (OECD 1999). One of the 

characteristics of the PISA 2000 instruments was 

the large amount of items requiring students to 

construct their own response. In reading, 45 

percent of items required an open-constructed 

response while this item type accounted for 

35 percent of the mathematics and science 

tests. Five item types were used in the PISA 

instruments: multiple choice, complex multiple 

choice, closed-constructed response, short 

response, and open-constructed response.

The assessments were designed to yield grouplevel information in a broad range of content 

while meeting the limitations of 120 minutes of 

testing time per student. To achieve this goal, an 

unbalanced rotation design permitted an overall 

assessment of 270 minutes of reading, 60 minutes 

of mathematics, and 60 minutes of science. The 

assessment in each domain was divided into 

clusters, organized into nine booklets. There were 

nine 40-minute reading clusters, four 15-minute 

clusters of mathematics, and four 15-minute 

clusters of science. In PISA 2000, every student 

answered reading items; over half the students 

answered items on science and mathematics.

This assessment design provided several features. 

First, the reading material was presented in a 

balanced way in order to avoid position effects and 

to ensure that each item had equal weight in the 

assessment. Second, seven of the nine booklets 

began with reading, and all booklets contained 

at least 60 minutes of reading. Five booklets also 

contained items for science, and five contained 

items for mathematics. Third, PISA 2000 included 

a link between PISA and IALS (the International 

Adult Literacy Study) through two reading blocks 

containing only IALS items, which were presented in 

six of the nine booklets. Finally, this design ensures 

that the representative sample of students responded 

to each block of items. For more information on the 

PISA 2000 assessment design, see the OECD’s PISA 

2000 Technical Report (OECD 2002).

Scoring

PISA’s assessment of reading included 270 

minutes of testing time, of which 45 percent 

was devoted to items requiring open-ended 

responses. The mathematics and science tests 

included 60 minutes of testing time, of which 

35 percent was assessed through open-ended 

items. The process of scoring these items was 

an important step in ensuring the quality and 

comparability of the PISA data.

Detailed guidelines were developed for the 

scoring guides themselves, training materials to 

recruit scorers, and workshop materials used 

for the training of national scorers. Prior to the 

national training, the PISA Consortium organized 

training sessions to present the material and train 

the scoring coordinators from the participating 

countries, who trained the national scorers.

For each test item, the scoring guide described 

the intent of the question and how to code the 

students’ responses to each item. This description 

included the credit labels—full credit, partial credit, 

or no credit—attached to the possible categories 

of response. Also included was a system of 

double-digit coding for the mathematics and 

science items where the first digit represented the 

score, and the second digit represented different 

strategies or approaches that students used to 

solve the problem. The second digit generated 

national profiles of student strategies and 

misconceptions. In addition, the scoring guides 

included real examples of students’ responses 

accompanied by a rationale for their classification 

for purposes of clarity and illustration.
Findings From PISA 2000

49

To examine the consistency of this marking 

process in more detail within each country 

and to estimate the magnitude of the variance 

components associated with the use of markers, 

the PISA Consortium conducted an interscorer 

reliability study on the subsample of assessment 

booklets. Homogeneity analysis was applied 

to the national sets of multiple scoring and 

compared with the results of the field trial. A full 

description of this process and the results can 

be found in the technical report on PISA 2000 

published by the OECD (OECD 2002).

Weighting

The use of sampling weights is necessary for 

the computation of statistically sound, nationally 

representative estimates. Survey weights help 

adjust for intentional over- or undersampling 

of certain sectors of the population, school or 

student nonresponse, or errors in estimating size 

of a school at the time of sampling.

For example, the United States oversampled for 

minorities in public schools with 15 percent or 

more minority students in order to obtain enough 

data on these students to report accurately on 

them. Sampling weights were applied to the data 

to adjust for over-sampling in order to ensure that 

the U.S. student sample represents the overall 15-

year-old student population. The weight assigned 

to a student’s responses is the inverse of the 

probability that the student would be selected 

for the sample. When responses were weighted, 

none were discarded, and each contributed 

to the results for the total number of students 

represented by the individual student assessed. 

Weighting also adjusts for various situations, such 

as school and student nonresponse, because data 

cannot be assumed to be randomly missing. The 

internationally defined weighting specifications 

for PISA required that each assessed student’s 

sampling weight be the product of the inverse 

of the school’s probability of selection, an 

adjustment for school-level nonresponse, the 

inverse of the student’s probability of selection, 

and an adjustment for student-level nonresponse. 

In addition, in the United States, two grade 

nonresponse factors were needed, one for grade 

9 and one for grade 10. All PISA analyses were 

conducted using these sampling weights.

The procedures being used to derive the 

survey weights for PISA are in accordance with 

standards of best practice for the analysis of 

complex survey data. They correspond to 

procedures that are used to analyze survey 

data by the world’s major statistical agencies 

including NCES, as well as conforming to 

Westat’s own current best methods. These 

are also the procedures that have been used 

in previous international studies of educational 

achievement, including the Third International 

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) of 

1995 and 1999.

Scaling and Plausible Values

PISA used Item Response Theory (IRT) methods 

to produce scale scores that summarized the 

achievement results. PISA 2000 utilized a mixed 

coefficients multinomial logit IRT model. This 

model is similar in principle to the more familiar 

two-parameter IRT model. With this method, 

the performance of a sample of students in a 

subject area or subarea can be summarized on 

a simple scale or a series of scales, even when 

different students are administered different items. 

Because of the reporting requirements for PISA 

and because of the large number of background 

variables associated with the assessment, a large 

number of analyses had to be conducted. The 

procedures PISA used for the analyses were 

developed to produce accurate results for groups 

of students while limiting the testing burden 

on individual students. Furthermore, these 

procedures provided data that could be readily 

used in secondary analyses. IRT scaling provides 

estimates of item parameters (e.g., difficulty, 

discrimination) that define the relationship 

between the item and the underlying variable 

measured by the test. Parameters of the IRT 

model are estimated for each test question, with 

an overall scale being established as well as scales 

for each predefined content area specified in the 

assessment framework. For example, PISA 2000 

had four scales describing reading (a combined 

score and subscale scores in three domains) and 

one each for mathematics and science.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

50

Plausible Values

During the scaling phase, plausible values were 

used to characterize scale scores for students 

participating in the assessment. To keep student 

burden to a minimum, PISA administered few 

assessment items to each student—too few to 

produce accurate content-related scale scores for 

each student. To account for this, PISA generated 

five possible scale scores for each student that 

represented selections from the distribution of 

scale scores of students with similar backgrounds 

who answered the assessment items the same 

way. The plausible-values technology is one 

way to ensure that the estimates of the average 

performance of student populations and the 

estimates of variability in those estimates are 

more accurate than those determined through 

traditional procedures, which estimate a single 

score for each student. During the construction 

of plausible values, careful quality control steps 

ensured that the subpopulation estimates based 

on these plausible values were accurate.

It is important to recognize that plausible values 

are not test scores and should not be treated 

as such. Plausible values are randomly drawn 

from the distribution of scores that could be 

reasonably assigned to each individual. As 

such, the plausible values contain random error 

variance components and are not optimal as 

scores for individuals. The PISA student file 

contains 30 plausible values, five for each of the 

five PISA 2000 cognitive scales (three reading 

subscales, one mathematics, and one science 

scale) and five for the combined reading scale. If 

an analysis is to be undertaken with one of these 

five cognitive scales, then (ideally) the analysis 

should be undertaken five times, once with each 

of the five relevant plausible value variables. The 

results of these five analyses are averaged and 

then significance tests that adjust for variation 

between the five sets of results are computed.

PISA uses the plausible-value methodology 

to represent what the true performance of 

an individual might have been, had it been 

observed, using a small number of random 

draws from an empirically derived distribution 

of score values based on the student’s 

observed responses to assessment items and on 

background variables. Each random draw from 

the distribution is considered a representative 

value from the distribution of potential scale 

scores for all students in the sample who have 

similar characteristics and identical patterns of 

item responses. The draws from the distribution 

are different from one another to quantify the 

degree of precision (the width of the spread) 

in the underlying distribution of possible scale 

scores that could have caused the observed 

performance. The PISA plausible values 

function like point estimates of scale scores for 

many purposes, but they are unlike true point 

estimates in several respects. They differ from 

one another for any particular student, and the 

amount of difference quantifies the spread in the 

underlying distribution of possible scale scores 

for that student. Because of the plausible-values 

approach, secondary researchers can use the 

PISA data to carry out a wide range of analyses.

Grade Distribution

The students in PISA were selected on the basis 

that they were 15 years old and, as a result, 

were spread across several grades. Grade 

distributions for 15-year-old students varied 

from country to country as a function of 

policies about age of entry to school or other 

educational policies. The proportion of students 

at each grade level in each of the participating 

nations is shown in table A-2.

Data Reliability

Estimates produced using data from PISA 2000 

are subject to two types of error, sampling and 

nonsampling errors. Nonsampling errors can 

be due to errors made in the collection and 

processing of data. Sampling errors can occur 

because the data were collected from a sample 

rather than a complete census of the population.

Nonsampling Errors

Nonsampling error is a term used to describe 

variations in the estimates that may be caused 

by population coverage limitations, nonresponse 

bias, and measurement error, as well as 

data collection, processing, and reporting 

procedures. The sources of nonsampling 
Findings From PISA 2000

51

Table A-2. Percentage distribution of 15-year-old students, by assessment subject grade 

and country: 2000

Country

Reading

Grade 8 

and below Grade 9 Grade 10

Grade 11 

and above

OECD Average 8 37 49 8

OECD countries

Australia ‡ 7 76 17

Austria 5 45 48 ‡ 

Belgium 6 28 65 1

Canada 2 13 81 1

Czech Republic 3 43 54 #

Denmark 6 89 3 #

Finland 11 89 # #

France 7 37 53 3

Germany 16 60 23 ‡ 

Greece 2 6 75 16

Hungary 8 57 35 #

Iceland # # 100 #

Ireland 3 62 16 19

Italy 1 16 76 6

Japan # # 100 #

Korea, Republic of # 1 99 1

Luxembourg 19 56 25 #

Mexico 14 29 50 ‡ 

New Zealand # # 7 93

Norway ‡ 1 98 1

Poland # 100 # #

Portugal 19 28 51 ‡ 

Spain 2 25 72 ‡ 

Sweden 2 97 ‡ #

Switzerland 20 64 14 ‡ 

United Kingdom # ‡ 34 66

United States 4 38 56 ‡ 

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 42 49 9 #

Latvia1 11 39 50 ‡ 

Liechtenstein 17 78 3 #

Russian Federation 2 27 70 1

See notes at end of table.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

52

Table A-2. Percentage distribution of 15-year-old students, by assessment subject grade 

and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Mathematics

Grade 8 

and below Grade 9 Grade 10

Grade 11 

and above

OECD Average 6 37 48 8

OECD countries

Australia ‡ 7 75 18

Austria 5 46 47 ‡ 

Belgium 6 27 65 1

Canada 2 13 81 2

Czech Republic 3 43 54 #

Denmark 6 89 3 #

Finland 11 89 # #

France 8 37 53 3

Germany 16 60 23 ‡ 

Greece 3 5 75 16

Hungary 8 56 35 #

Iceland # # 100 #

Ireland 3 61 17 19

Italy 1 16 77 6

Japan # # 100 #

Korea, Republic of # 1 98 1

Luxembourg 19 56 24 #

Mexico 13 29 50 ‡ 

New Zealand # # 7 93

Norway ‡ 1 98 1

Poland # 100 # #

Portugal 19 28 51 ‡ 

Spain 2 26 72 ‡ 

Sweden 2 97 1 #

Switzerland 20 64 14 ‡ 

United Kingdom # ‡ 34 66

United States 4 41 55 ‡ 

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 42 49 9 #

Latvia1 11 39 50 ‡ 

Liechtenstein 16 78 3 #

Russian Federation 2 27 70 1

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

53

Table A-2. Percentage distribution of 15-year-old students, by assessment subject grade 

and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Science

Grade 8 

and below Grade 9 Grade 10

Grade 11 

and above

OECD Average 6 37 49 8

OECD countries

Australia ‡ 6 76 17

Austria 5 45 48 ‡ 

Belgium 5 28 65 1

Canada 2 13 82 1

Czech Republic 3 43 54 #

Denmark 6 90 2 #

Finland 11 89 # #

France 7 37 54 2

Germany 16 60 23 ‡ 

Greece 3 5 76 15

Hungary 8 57 35 #

Iceland # # 100 #

Ireland 3 62 16 18

Italy 1 16 77 6

Japan # # 100 #

Korea, Republic of # 1 98 1

Luxembourg 18 56 26 #

Mexico 13 30 50 ‡ 

New Zealand # # 7 92

Norway ‡ 1 98 1

Poland # 100 # #

Portugal 20 27 51 ‡ 

Spain 3 26 71 #

Sweden 2 97 1 #

Switzerland 20 65 14 ‡ 

United Kingdom # ‡ 34 65

United States 3 39 57 ‡ 

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 42 49 9 #

Latvia1 10 39 51 ‡ 

Liechtenstein 18 78 3 1

Russian Federation 2 28 70 1

#Rounds to zero.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1The grade distributions reported for Latvia are for the reading literacy section of the assessment only. The 

actual numbers for mathematics and science literacy may vary slightly due to different numbers of 15-year-olds 

taking each assessment. 

NOTE: The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data 

available. Because the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is principally an OECD study, the 

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

in the OECD average. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or some data not reported, or both.

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

Life—First Results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. Paris: Author.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

54

errors are typically problems like unit and item 

nonresponse, the differences in respondents’ 

interpretations of the meaning of the questions, 

response differences related to the particular 

time the survey was conducted, and mistakes in 

data preparation.

In general, it is difficult to identify and estimate 

either the amount of nonsampling error or 

the bias caused by this error. In PISA 2000, 

efforts were made to prevent such errors from 

occurring and to compensate for them when 

possible. For example, the design phase entailed 

a field test that evaluated items as well as the 

implementation procedures for the survey.

Another potential source of nonsampling 

error was respondent bias, which occurs 

when respondents systematically misreport 

(intentionally or unintentionally) information in 

a study. One potential source of respondent 

bias in this survey was social desirability bias. 

For example, students may overstate their 

parents’ educational attainment or occupational 

status. If there were no systematic differences 

among specific groups under study in their 

tendency to give socially desirable responses, 

then comparisons of the different groups will 

accurately reflect differences among groups. In 

order to minimize bias, all items were subjected 

to field tests. Readers should be aware that 

respondent bias may be present in this survey 

as in any survey. It was not possible to state 

precisely how such bias may affect the results.

Sampling Errors

Sampling errors occur when the discrepancy 

between a population characteristic and the 

sample estimate arises because not all members 

of the reference population are sampled for the 

survey. The size of the sample relative to the 

population and the variability of the population 

characteristics both influence the magnitude 

of sampling error. The sample of 15-year-old 

students from the 1999–2000 school year 

was just one of many possible samples that 

could have been selected. Therefore, estimates 

produced from the PISA 2000 sample may 

differ from estimates that would have been 

produced from other samples. This type of 

variability is called sampling error because 

it arises from using a sample of 15-year-old 

students in 1999–2000, rather than all 15-yearold students in that year.

The standard error is a measure of the variability 

due to sampling when estimating a statistic. 

Standard errors for estimates presented in this 

report were computed using Balanced Repeated 

Replication (BRR)—the Fay method of BRR. 

Standard errors can be used as a measure for the 

precision expected from a particular sample.

Standard errors for all of the estimates are 

included in appendix B to this report. These 

standard errors can be used to produce 

confidence intervals. There is a 95 percent 

chance that the true average lies within the 

range of 1.96 times the standard errors above 

or below the estimated score. For example, it 

was estimated that 49.2 percent of level 1 or 

below U.S. students had low engagement in 

reading, and this statistic had a standard error of 

3.28. Therefore, it can be stated with 95 percent 

confidence that the actual percentage of level 

1 or below U.S. students with low engagement 

in reading for the total population in 1999-2000 

was between 42.8 and 55.6 percent (1.96 X 

3.28 = 6.43; confidence interval = 49.2 +/- 6.43).

Data Limitations

As with any study, there are limitations to 

PISA 2000 that researchers should take into 

consideration. First, there are design constraints. 

For example, the sampling frame was limited 

to regular public and private schools in the 50 

states and the District of Columbia, and a small 

percentage of the potential base-year sample 

was excluded because of serious disability or 

greatly limited proficiency in English. (For more 

information about the PISA 2000 base-year 

sample, and for a discussion of issues of eligibility, 

inclusion, and the effect of exclusion on national 

estimates, see OECD 2002.) Second, there are 

limitations of the data (e.g., small cell sizes for 

certain groups of individuals that may produce 

large standard errors). There are also specific 

limitations of the data relevant to this analysis. 

For example, a number of the items, such as 

engagement in reading, were self-reported.
Findings From PISA 2000

55

Further details about study limitations as well 

as further information about the methodology, 

design, and data contents of PISA 2000 can be 

found in OECD (2002).

Description of Variables

Construction of Socioeconomic Status 

(SES) Variable

Parental occupations were grouped according 

to the Major Occupational Group Classification 

of the International Labor Organization’s 

International Standard Classification of 

Occupations (ISCO-88). Students were assigned 

a socioeconomic status based on their father’s 

occupation (if the father was not present, then 

the mother). SES was based on the following 

breakdowns: “High” if their parents had an 

occupation in the categories of legislators, 

senior officials and managers or professionals; 

“Medium” if their parents had an occupation of 

technicians and associate professionals, clerks, 

service workers, or craft and trade workers; 

“Low” if their parents had an occupation of 

skilled agricultural and fishery workers, plant and 

machine operators and assemblers, or elementary 

occupations.3

International Standard Classification 

of Education (ISCED) Levels

ISCED is a classification framework that allows 

for the alignment of the educational content of 

programs using multiple classification criteria. 

The ISCED standards address the intent (e.g., 

to study basic subjects or prepare students for 

university) of each year of a particular education 

system, but do not indicate the depth or rigor of 

study in that year. That is, ISCED is useful when 

comparing the age range of students in upper 

secondary schools across nations, for example, 

but it does not indicate whether the curriculum 

and standards are equivalent within the same 

year of schooling across nations. ISCED allows 

researchers to compile statistics on education 

internationally. There are eight ISCED levels.

ISCED level 0 is classified as preprimary 

education. ISCED level 1 consists of primary 

education, which usually lasts 4 to 6 years. 

At ISCED level 2, or lower secondary school, 

students continue to learn the basic subjects 

taught in level 1. At ISCED level 3, or upper 

secondary education, student coursework 

is more subject-specific and taught by more 

specialized teachers. ISCED level 4 programs 

consist of postsecondary, nontertiary programs.

Tertiary and postsecondary programs are divided 

into ISCED levels 5, 6, and 7. ISCED level 5b 

programs are considered tertiary-type B, and 

levels 5a, 6, and 7 are considered tertiary-type A. 

Level 5b or tertiary-type B programs are typically 

shorter than tertiary-type A programs, which are 

either level 5a or 7. Level 5 programs also tend to 

focus on practical, technical, or occupational skills. 

Associate degree programs in the United States 

qualify as ISCED level 5b programs. ISCED level 

5a programs are theory based and are designed 

to provide qualifications for entry into advanced 

research programs and professions with high skill 

requirements. U.S. bachelor’s degree programs 

are tertiary-type A programs at level 6, while 

graduate degree programs in the United States are 

considered level 7.

Within this report, the parental education variable 

utilizes the ISCED levels. Students were asked to 

respond “yes” or “no” to the questions:

• Did your mother complete <ISCED 5a, 

5b, 6>?

• Did your father complete <ISCED 5a, 

5b, 6>?

Each country, using the ISCED descriptions, filled 

in the education level. For example, in the United 

States, the questions read:

• Did your mother complete a bachelor’s, 

master’s or post graduate program?

• Did your father complete a bachelor’s, 

master’s or post graduate program?

3Elementary occupations consist mainly of simple and routine tasks that mainly require the use of hand-held tools and often some physical effort.

Most occupations in this major group require skills at the first ISCO skill level (a primary education, which generally begins at the age of 5, 6, or 7 

and lasts about 5 years) (ILO 1990).
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

56

Students who responded “yes” to at least one of the 

two questions were coded as having a parent who 

completed college. In contrast to the international 

version of the question, the U.S. adaptation does not 

include ISCED level 5b programs, which are typically 

associate’s degree programs. However in the United 

States, the percentage of those who have completed 

this level of education is small, and their omission 

does not create a discrepancy in comparability with 

other countries. 

Student reports of parents’ educational attainment 

may be inaccurate as some students either do not 

know or exaggerate parent education. Census 

data show a much lower percentage of the U.S. 

population, 35-49 years old, having completed 

college (28.1 percent compared with 54.5 percent 

reported by children about their parents).4

PISA Indices

Several of PISA’s measures reflect indices that 

summarize responses from students to a series 

of related questions. The questions were selected 

from larger constructs on the basis of theoretical 

considerations and previous research. Structural 

equation modeling was used to confirm the 

theoretically expected behavior of the indices and to 

validate their comparability across countries. For this 

purpose, a model was estimated separately for each 

country and, collectively, for all the OECD countries.

This section explains the three indices derived from 

the student questionnaires. For a description of other 

PISA indices and details on the methods, see the PISA 

2000 Technical Report (OECD 2002).

Where an index involved multiple questions and 

student responses, the index was scaled using a 

weighted maximum likelihood estimate, using a oneparameter item response model (referred to as a 

WARM estimator; see Warm 1985) with three stages:

1. The question parameters were estimated 

from equal-sized subsamples of students 

from each OECD country.

2. The estimates were computed for all students 

and all schools by anchoring the question 

parameters obtained in the preceding step.

3. The indices were then standardized so 

that the mean of the index value for 

the OECD student population was zero 

and the standard deviation was one 

(countries being given equal weight in the 

standardization process).

It is important to note that negative values in 

an index do not necessarily imply that students 

responded negatively to the underlying questions. 

A negative value merely indicates that a group of 

students (or all students, collectively, in a single 

country) responded less positively than all 

students did on average across OECD countries. 

Likewise, a positive value on an index indicates that 

a group of students responded more favorably, or 

more positively, than students did, on average, in 

OECD countries.

When a student did not respond to one or more 

of the questions in the index, the student was 

counted as missing for the whole index. For more 

information about missing data and response rates, 

see the Missing Data subsection in this appendix.

The following indices have been used in this report:

Engagement in Reading

PISA 2000 measured student engagement in 

reading by asking for their level of agreement 

(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) 

with the following statements: 

• I read only if I have to;

• Reading is one of my favorite hobbies; 

• I like talking about books with people; 

• I find it hard to finish books; 

• I feel happy if I receive a book as a 

present; 

• For me, reading is a waste of time;

• I enjoy going to a bookstore or a library; 

• I read only to get information that I need; 

and 

• I cannot sit still and read for more than a 

few minutes.

4Census data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Education & Social Stratification Branch, Table 1a. Percent of High 

School and College Graduates of the Population 15 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: March 2000. Available: 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/p20-536.html.
Findings From PISA 2000

57

In order to examine differences among low 

achievers in engagement in reading, in the United 

States and other countries, student index values 

from all OECD countries were arrayed and cut 

points calculated for the bottom quarter and top 

quarter of students. Students with index values 

in the bottom quarter (value of -0.66 or lower) 

were categorized as having “low” engagement in 

reading and students with index values in the top 

quarter (value of 0.58 of higher) were categorized 

as having “high” engagement in reading. Students 

with all other index values (value of higher than 

-0.66 but 0.58 or lower) were categorized 

as having a “medium” sense of effort and 

perseverance in schoolwork).The resulting cut 

points were then applied to the index scores 

from each nation, allowing for the calculation of 

the percentage of students in each nation who 

showed high or low levels of engagement.

Sense of Belonging in School

PISA 2000 measured students’ feelings of 

membership in school through a summary index 

called “sense of belonging in school” by asking for 

students’ level of agreement (strongly disagree, 

disagree, agree, strongly agree) with the following 

statements about their feelings at school: 

• I make friends easily;

• I feel that I belong in school; 

• Other students like me; 

• I feel like an outsider; 

• I feel awkward and out of place; and 

• I feel lonely at school.

As with engagement in reading, index values 

for sense of belonging in school from all OECD 

countries were arrayed and cut points calculated 

for the bottom quarter and top quarter of 

students. Students with index values in the 

bottom quarter (value of -0.61 or lower) were 

categorized as having a “low” sense of belonging 

and students with index values in the top quarter 

(value of 0.48 or higher) were categorized as 

having a “high” sense of belonging. Students with 

all other index values (value of higher than -0.61 

but 0.48 or lower) were categorized as having a 

“medium” sense of belonging.

Effort and Perseverance in Schoolwork

PISA 2000 measured students’ levels of effort 

and perseverance in schoolwork by asking how 

frequently (not at all, very little, to some extent, 

a lot) they 

• work as hard as possible, 

• keep working even if the material is 

difficult, 

• try to do their best to acquire the 

knowledge and skills taught, and 

• put forth their best effort.

Again, index values for effort and perseverance 

from all OECD countries were arrayed and cut 

points calculated for the bottom quarter and top 

quarter of students. Students with index values 

in the bottom quarter (value of -0.64 or lower) 

were categorized as having “low” effort and 

perseverance and students with index values 

in the top quarter (value of 0.69 of higher) 

were categorized as having “high” effort and 

perseverance. Students with all other index values 

(value of higher than -0.64 but 0.69 or lower) 

were categorized as having a “medium” sense of 

effort and perseverance in schoolwork).

Student Educational Characteristics

All of the data presented related to private tutoring 

and remedial courses outside of school are based 

on student reports of their activities over the 

course of the previous three years, from ages 

approximately 12 to 15. For the United States, 

and for most students assessed in PISA, the 

previous three years would include grades seven 

through ten.

When responding to the two following questions, 

students were required to report how frequently 

they completed the specific activity (regularly, 

sometimes, or never).
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

58

Private Tutoring Outside of School

PISA 2000 sought to explore the use of private 

tutoring outside of school by students through 

the following question:

• During the last three years, have you 

attended private tutoring outside of your 

school to improve your learning?

Remedial Courses in the Test 

Language Outside of School

PISA 2000 also reported on students’ enrollment 

in remedial courses in the test language outside 

of school by asking the question: 

• During the last three years, have you 

attended remedial courses in the test 

language outside of school to improve 

your learning?5

Missing School and Skipping Class

Data presented related to missing school and 

skipping class are based on student reports of 

their activities over the previous two weeks.

Students’ responses were grouped into the 

categories never, one or two times, and three 

or more times. In order to further facilitate 

discussion, the category response of “missed 

school 3 or more times in the past two weeks” 

is referred to as “miss school frequently,” while 

“skipped class 3 or more times in the past two 

weeks” is referred to as “skip class frequently.”

PISA 2000 measured the frequency with which 

students miss school and skip class by asking two 

questions: 

• How many times in the previous two 

weeks did you miss the entire school day?

• How many times in the previous two 

weeks did you skip a class? (note: count 

each skipped class separately)

Student Reports of Job Expectations

PISA 2000 determined students’ job expectations 

by asking the following question:

• What kind of job do you expect to have 

when you are about 30 years old? Write 

the job title.

The student responses were classified using 

the International Standard Classification of 

Occupations 1988 (ISCO-88) into the 10 major 

occupational groups shown in exhibit A-1. 

Created by the International Labor Organization 

(ILO) in 1988, ISCO is used internationally to 

classify occupations. For more information about 

ISCO-88, see International Labor Organization 

(1990).

Statistical Procedures

Tests of Significance

Comparisons made in the text of this report 

have been tested for statistical significance. For 

example, in the commonly made comparison 

of country averages against the average of the 

United States, tests of statistical significance 

were used to establish whether or not the 

observed differences from the U.S. average were 

statistically significant.

In almost all instances, the tests used were standard 

t tests. These fell into two categories according 

to the nature of the comparison being made. In 

simple comparisons of independent averages such 

as the U.S. average with other country averages or 

against the OECD average, the following formula 

was used to compute the t statistic:

t = est1 – est2 / SQRT[(se1)

2 + (se2)2]

est1 and est2 are the estimates being compared 

(e.g., average of country A and the U.S. average), 

and se1 and se1 are the corresponding standard 

errors of these averages.

5Test language was English for students in the United States.
Findings From PISA 2000

59

To guard against errors of inference based on 

multiple comparisons, as in the case of comparing 

all countries to the United States, the Bonferroni 

adjustment procedure was used. This procedure 

increases the critical value of t as the number of 

comparisons increases. When data are available 

for all the participating countries, the number of 

comparisons against the United States is 30, and 

the critical value required for statistical significance 

is 3.14 at the .05 level.

The second type of comparison used in this 

report occurred when comparing a subgroup of a 

population to the total population. Comparing the 

percentage of males at level 1 or below versus the 

percentage in the overall U.S. 15-year-old population 

is an example. In such comparisons, the following 

formula was used to compute the t statistic:

t = estsub – esttotal / SQRT[(sesub)

2 + (setotal)2 

 – 2p(sesub)

2]

estsub is the subgroup estimate being compared, 

and esttotal is the total estimate being compared. 

sesub and setotal are the corresponding standard 

errors of these averages. P is the proportion of 

the subgroup to the total population. For example, 

18 percent of U.S. students were classified as 

level 1 or below, and so p, when making U.S. 

comparisons, is .18.

In this comparison, the critical value of t is 1.96.

Standard Errors

The estimation of the standard errors that are 

required in order to undertake the tests of 

significance is complicated by the complex sample 

and assessment designs which both generate 

error variance. Together they mandate a set 

of statistically complicated procedures in order 

to estimate the correct standard errors. As a 

consequence, the estimated standard errors 

contain a sampling variance component estimated 

by Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR)—the 

Fay method of BRR; and, where the assessments 

are concerned, an additional imputation variance 

component arising from the assessment design. 

Details on the procedures used can be found in 

the WesVar 4.0 User’s Guide (Westat 2000).

Missing Data

Missing data have not been explicitly accounted 

for or imputed in the analyses for this report.

Cases where more than 15 percent of the 

student responses are missing are flagged in the 

supporting statistical data tables in appendix B. 

In cases where more than 50 percent of the 

responses are missing, the data are not presented 

in the data tables. Particular attention to the 

problem of missing data should be considered 

when analyzing parents’ education and students’ 

reports of job expectations.

Exhibit A-1. International Standard 

Classification of Occupations 

(ISCO) major occupational 

groups created by the 

International Labor 

Organization (ILO)

ISCO major occupational groups

Armed forces

Clerks

Craft and related trade workers

Elementary occupations

Legislators, senior officials, and managers

Plant and machine operators and assemblers

Professionals

Service workers, shop, and market sales workers

Skilled agricultural and fishery workers

Technicians and associate professionals

NOTE: Elementary occupations consist mainly of 

simple and routine tasks that mainly require the use 

of hand-held tools and often some physical effort. 

Most occupations in this major group require skills at 

the first ISCO skill level (a primary education which 

generally begins at the age of 5, 6, or 7 and lasts 

about 5 years).

SOURCE: International Labor Organization 

(1990). International Standard Classification of 

Occupations—ISCO-88. Geneva, 1988.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

60

There are four kinds of missing data. 

“Nonresponse” data occurs when a respondent 

was expected to answer an item but no 

response is given. Responses that are “missing 

or invalid” occur in multiple-choice items where 

an invalid response is given. The code is not 

used for open-ended questions. An item is 

“not applicable” when it is not possible for 

the respondent to answer the question. Finally, 

items that are “not reached” are consecutive 

missing values starting from the end of each test 

session. All four kinds of missing data are coded 

differently in the PISA 2000 database. 

A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted in 

the United States to determine if substantial bias 

had been introduced due to school nonresponse. 

The analysis found no evidence of a systematic 

bias in the sampling procedures. A nonresponse 

bias analysis was not conducted at the student 

level in the United States or in any of the other 

PISA 2000 countries. PISA data have not been 

imputed by the OECD, the United States, or any 

other participating country.

Literacy Levels

While the basic form of measurement in PISA 

describes student literacy in each country in 

terms of a range of scale scores, PISA also treats 

proficiency in reading literacy in terms of five 

levels, each representing tasks of increasing 

complexity. As a result, the literacy findings 

are reported in terms of percentages of the 

population proficient at handling tasks of 

different levels of difficulty.

Each of the four reading literacy scales—the 

combined score and the three subscale scores—is 

divided into five levels based on the type of 

knowledge and skills students need to demonstrate 

at a particular level. Cut scores for the levels 

are as follows: below level 1: a score equal to or 

less than 334.75; level 1: a score greater than 

334.75 and equal to or below 407.47; level 2: a 

score greater than 407.47 and equal to or below 

480.18; level 3: a score greater than 480.18 and 

equal to or below 552.89; level 4: a score greater 

than 552.89 and equal to or below 625.61; and 

level 5: a score greater than 625.61.

All students within a level were expected to answer 

at least half of the items from that level correctly. 

Students at the bottom of a level had a 62 percent 

chance of success on the easiest items from that 

level and a 42 percent chance of success on the 

hardest items from that level. Students at the top 

of a level were able to provide the correct answer 

to about 70 percent of all items from that level, 

had a 62 percent chance of success on the hardest 

items from that level, and had a 78 percent chance 

of success on the easiest items from that level. 

Students just below the top of a level would score 

less than 50 percent on an assessment of the next 

highest level. Students at a particular level not only 

demonstrated the knowledge and skills associated 

with that level but also the proficiencies defined by 

lower levels. Thus, all students proficient at level 

3 are also proficient at levels 1 and 2. Patterns of 

responses for students below level 1 suggested 

they were unable to answer at least half of the 

items in level 1 correctly.
Findings From PISA 2000

61
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

62

Appendix B:

Supporting 

Statistical Data
Findings From PISA 2000

63

Table B-1. Combined reading literacy 

average scores of 15-year-old 

students, by country: 2000 

Country Average 

score s.e.

OECD average 500.0 0.64

OECD countries

Australia 528.3 3.52

Austria 507.1 2.40

Belgium 507.1 3.56

Canada 534.3 1.56

Czech Republic 491.6 2.37

Denmark 496.9 2.35

Finland 546.5 2.58

France 504.7 2.73

Germany 484.0 2.47

Greece 473.8 4.97

Hungary 480.0 3.95

Iceland 506.9 1.45

Ireland 526.7 3.24

Italy 487.5 2.91

Japan 522.2 5.21

Korea, Republic of 524.8 2.42

Luxembourg 441.3 1.59

Mexico 422.0 3.32

New Zealand 528.8 2.78

Norway 505.3 2.80

Poland 479.1 4.46

Portugal 470.2 4.52

Spain 492.6 2.71

Sweden 516.3 2.20

Switzerland 494.4 4.25

United Kingdom 523.4 2.56

United States 504.4 7.05

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 396.0 3.10

Latvia 458.1 5.27

Liechtenstein 482.6 4.12

Russian Federation 461.8 4.16

NOTE: The OECD average is the average of the national 

averages of the OECD member countries with data 

available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the 

results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately 

from those of the OECD countries and are not included 

in the OECD average. s.e. means standard error. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

64

Table B-2. Percentage of 15-year-old students scoring at selected proficiency levels on the 

combined reading literacy scale, by country: 2000 

Country

Level 1 or below Level 5

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 18 2.0 9 0.1

OECD countries

Australia 12 0.9 18 1.2

Austria 15 0.7 9 0.8

Belgium 19 1.3 12 0.7

Canada 10 0.4 17 0.5

Czech Republic 18 0.8 7 0.6

Denmark 18 0.9 8 0.5

Finland 7 0.7 18 0.9

France 15 1.1 8 0.6

Germany 23 1.0 9 0.5

Greece 24 2.1 5 0.7

Hungary 23 1.5 5 0.8

Iceland 15 0.7 9 0.7

Ireland 11 1.0 14 0.8

Italy 19 1.1 5 0.5

Japan 10 1.5 10 1.1

Korea, Republic of 6 0.7 6 0.6

Luxembourg 35 0.8 2 0.3

Mexico 44 1.7 1 0.2

New Zealand 14 0.8 19 1.0

Norway 17 1.1 11 0.7

Poland 23 1.4 6 1.0

Portugal 26 1.9 4 0.5

Spain 16 1.1 4 0.5

Sweden 13 0.7 11 0.7

Switzerland 20 1.3 9 1.0

United Kingdom 13 0.7 16 1.0

United States 18 2.2 12 1.4

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 56 1.7 1 0.2

Latvia 30 2.0 4 0.6

Liechtenstein 22 2.1 5 1.6

Russian Federation 27 1.7 3 0.5

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. 

In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that 

level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below, while students 

scoring 626 or above were classified at level 5. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD 

member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries 

are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. s.e. means 

standard error. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items, 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

65

Table B-3. Combined reading literacy average scores of 15-year-old students, by sex, 

female-male score point difference, and country: 2000 

Country

Sex

Femalemale 

score point 

difference s.e.

Female Male

Average 

score s.e.

Average

 score s.e.

OECD average 516.5 0.75 484.8 0.82 31.7 0.94

OECD countries

Australia 546.3 4.74 512.7 4.04 33.6 5.44

Austria 520.3 3.59 494.7 3.23 25.6 5.24

Belgium 525.2 4.92 492.4 4.24 32.8 5.99

Canada 551.1 1.70 518.9 1.76 32.2 1.63

Czech Republic 510.1 2.53 472.6 4.11 37.4 4.71

Denmark 510.3 2.87 485.4 2.95 24.8 3.28

Finland 571.4 2.78 520.1 3.00 51.3 2.63

France 519.1 2.72 490.3 3.50 28.8 3.38

Germany 502.2 3.88 467.6 3.17 34.7 5.21

Greece 492.7 4.63 455.7 6.07 37.0 5.01

Hungary 496.2 4.35 464.5 5.34 31.6 5.73

Iceland 528.1 2.14 488.5 2.12 39.7 3.11

Ireland 541.5 3.55 512.8 4.18 28.7 4.56

Italy 507.4 3.57 469.2 5.14 38.2 7.05

Japan 536.9 5.39 507.3 6.74 29.7 6.44

Korea, Republic of 532.7 3.70 518.5 3.77 14.2 6.02

Luxembourg 455.7 2.30 428.8 2.58 26.9 3.77

Mexico 431.8 3.84 411.5 4.18 20.3 4.34

New Zealand 552.6 3.80 506.8 4.18 45.8 6.28

Norway 528.8 2.86 485.6 3.79 43.2 4.04

Poland 497.5 5.52 461.4 5.99 36.1 6.97

Portugal 482.4 4.64 457.7 4.98 24.7 3.77

Spain 505.4 2.76 481.2 3.35 24.1 3.17

Sweden 535.6 2.48 498.6 2.56 37.0 2.70

Switzerland 510.0 4.50 480.1 4.85 30.0 4.17

United Kingdom 537.2 3.45 511.6 3.03 25.6 4.28

United States 518.2 6.20 489.7 8.41 28.6 4.12

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 404.3 3.41 387.6 3.91 16.7 3.98

Latvia 484.7 5.40 431.9 5.53 52.8 4.20

Liechtenstein 499.6 6.83 468.5 7.33 31.2 11.54

Russian Federation 481.0 4.09 442.8 4.53 38.2 2.92

NOTE: The female-male score point difference is calculated by subtracting average scores of males from average 

scores of females. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data 

available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from 

those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. s.e. means standard error. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

66

Table B-4. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading literacy scale, by sex and country: 2000 

Country

Overall Level 1 or below

Male Female Male Female

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 50.1 0.35 49.9 0.35 62.3 0.90 37.7 0.90

OECD countries

Australia 52.5 2.18 47.5 2.18 67.8 3.10 32.2 3.10

Austria 47.9 2.38 52.1 2.38 59.6 3.14 40.4 3.14

Belgium 52.1 1.65 47.9 1.65 63.7 3.16 36.3 3.16

Canada 49.9 0.52 50.1 0.52 67.7 1.40 32.3 1.40

Czech Republic 48.3 1.78 51.7 1.78 65.7 2.62 34.3 2.62

Denmark 50.3 0.94 49.7 0.94 62.3 2.14 37.7 2.14

Finland 48.6 0.78 51.4 0.78 76.6 3.71 23.4 3.71

France 48.7 1.32 51.3 1.32 64.3 2.53 35.7 2.53

Germany 50.4 1.47 49.7 1.47 59.7 2.41 40.3 2.41

Greece 50.2 1.31 49.8 1.31 63.8 2.68 36.2 2.68

Hungary 50.4 2.11 49.6 2.11 60.7 2.95 39.3 2.95

Iceland 49.6 0.84 50.4 0.84 71.0 2.36 29.0 2.36

Ireland 49.6 1.79 50.4 1.79 61.6 3.64 38.4 3.64

Italy 50.7 2.70 49.3 2.70 66.9 4.38 33.1 4.38

Japan 49.5 2.35 50.5 2.35 69.9 4.28 30.1 4.28

Korea, Republic of 55.9 3.53 44.1 3.53 71.3 5.09 28.7 5.09

Luxembourg 49.9 0.89 50.1 0.89 57.9 1.67 42.1 1.67

Mexico 50.0 1.19 50.0 1.19 56.1 1.43 43.9 1.43

New Zealand 50.3 2.44 49.7 2.44 69.2 2.89 30.8 2.89

Norway 51.0 0.88 49.0 0.88 69.8 2.31 30.2 2.31

Poland 50.9 2.65 49.1 2.65 66.4 3.70 33.6 3.70

Portugal 48.0 0.92 52.0 0.92 57.7 2.05 42.3 2.05

Spain 49.2 1.34 50.8 1.34 63.3 2.51 36.7 2.51

Sweden 50.8 0.86 49.2 0.86 69.0 2.58 31.0 2.58

Switzerland 50.2 1.00 49.8 1.00 61.3 2.18 38.7 2.18

United Kingdom 49.6 1.27 50.4 1.27 60.6 2.51 39.4 2.51

United States 48.4 0.98 51.6 0.98 62.1 2.11 37.9 2.11

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 46.0 1.16 54.0 1.16 49.3 1.27 50.7 1.27

Latvia 48.7 1.57 51.3 1.57 66.0 1.80 34.0 1.80

Liechtenstein 50.3 2.87 49.7 2.87 63.4 6.98 36.6 6.98

Russian Federation 49.9 0.89 50.1 0.89 64.0 1.62 36.0 1.62

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. 

In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. 

Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average 

is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally 

an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and 

are not included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old 

student population. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

67

Table B-5. Percentage distributions of U.S. 15-year-old students overall and scoring at 

level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by race/ethnicity: 2000 

Race/Ethnicity

Overall Level 1 or below

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

White, non-Hispanic 59.2 4.09 28.2 4.50

Black, non-Hispanic 13.9 1.92 27.9 4.28

Hispanic 18.0 3.97 35.4 6.55

Other 8.8 1.34 8.5 2.21

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. 

In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. 

Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The “other” group 

comprises students identifying themselves as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or 

multiracial since the numbers of these students are too small to report by individual categories. The overall percentage 

refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not 

sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

68

Table B-6. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by socioeconomic status and 

country: 2000

Country

Overall 

Low socioeconomic 

status

Medium socioeconomic 

status

High socioeconomic 

status

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 25.9 0.19 45.0 0.20 29.1 0.24

OECD countries

Australia 24.5 1.05 41.4 0.87 34.1 1.27

Austria 15.0 0.74 53.0 0.98 32.1 0.99

Belgium 21.8 0.72 47.8 0.66 30.4 0.92

Canada 31.9 0.45 37.4 0.44 30.8 0.52

Czech Republic 24.9 0.82 46.0 0.85 29.2 0.72

Denmark 26.2 0.78 40.5 0.96 33.3 1.16

Finland 24.1 0.86 42.6 0.94 33.3 1.05

France 30.0 0.89 47.1 0.85 22.9 0.96

Germany 22.3 0.67 54.3 0.70 23.5 0.79

Greece 24.8 0.97 45.5 0.95 29.7 1.19

Hungary 25.1 0.88 53.9 0.89 21.0 1.01

Iceland 22.8 0.77 42.5 0.93 34.7 0.84

Ireland 30.1 1.15 36.4 1.05 33.5 1.18

Italy 24.4 0.82 48.4 0.96 27.2 0.84

Japan1 ‡ † ‡ † ‡ †

Korea, Republic of 33.1 1.01 42.3 0.89 24.7 1.10

Luxembourg 32.0 0.74 47.5 0.87 20.5 0.71

Mexico 39.0 1.48 36.8 1.30 24.2 1.76

New Zealand 27.4 1.06 36.1 0.88 36.5 0.98

Norway 19.9 0.90 37.7 0.86 42.5 0.95

Poland 24.9 0.90 56.2 1.11 18.9 0.98

Portugal 24.9 1.02 49.0 0.90 26.1 1.12

Spain 24.5 1.02 52.4 0.95 23.0 1.34

Sweden 27.4 0.95 42.8 0.86 29.9 0.97

Switzerland 21.8 0.82 49.5 0.83 28.7 1.21

United Kingdom 24.6 0.88 40.4 0.84 35.0 1.04

United States 25.0 1.57 41.4 1.02 33.6 1.92

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 41.3 1.26 42.5 1.10 16.2 1.14

Latvia 34.3 1.14 45.2 1.21 20.5 1.07

Liechtenstein 25.5 2.54 49.8 3.02 24.7 2.43

Russian Federation 40.1 1.29 38.8 0.77 21.1 1.06

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

69

Table B-6. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by socioeconomic status and 

country: 2000—Continued

Country

Level 1 or below 

Low socioeconomic 

status

Medium socioeconomic 

status

High socioeconomic 

status

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 39.1 0.44 46.2 0.44 14.7 0.38

OECD countries

Australia 40.9 2.82 40.2 3.19 19.0 2.39

Austria 23.9 1.97 60.4 2.17 15.7 1.73

Belgium 35.6 2.08 50.3 2.17 14.1 1.42

Canada 50.2 1.64 34.0 1.61 15.8 0.93

Czech Republic 37.4 2.57 47.4 2.76 15.2 1.60

Denmark 42.4 2.31 40.1 2.65 17.5 1.79

Finland 34.2 3.89 44.4 2.93 21.4 3.46

France 45.7 2.22 46.5 2.20 7.8 1.26

Germany 38.3 2.00 52.7 1.88 9.0 0.98

Greece 34.8 2.61 46.0 2.39 19.2 1.94

Hungary 38.7 2.73 54.4 2.47 6.9 1.01

Iceland 31.3 2.25 43.7 2.37 25.0 1.99

Ireland 44.1 3.00 38.2 2.99 17.7 2.15

Italy 32.6 1.95 47.6 2.24 19.8 2.11

Japan1 ‡ † ‡ † ‡ †

Korea, Republic of 49.7 4.71 35.3 3.90 15.0 3.65

Luxembourg 42.4 1.59 47.9 1.67 9.7 0.94

Mexico 49.4 2.22 36.1 1.93 14.5 1.48

New Zealand 45.8 3.30 33.3 3.07 20.8 2.24

Norway 31.6 1.85 40.7 1.92 27.7 1.99

Poland 35.0 2.09 56.8 2.38 8.2 1.29

Portugal 36.1 1.71 50.3 1.76 13.5 1.53

Spain 34.6 2.08 55.4 2.00 10.1 1.38

Sweden 41.7 2.60 43.5 2.55 14.7 1.57

Switzerland 35.6 1.86 53.9 2.07 10.5 1.13

United Kingdom 43.8 2.12 41.0 2.25 15.2 1.62

United States 42.0 2.79 41.9 2.36 16.1 2.31

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 47.0 1.58 42.4 1.69 10.6 1.10

Latvia 41.4 2.23 46.0 2.20 12.7 1.62

Liechtenstein 41.0 6.50 47.5 6.70 11.5 3.93

Russian Federation 52.3 2.28 37.0 1.59 10.7 1.16

†Not applicable.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases). 

1The item response rate is below 50 percent. 

NOTE: Students were classified into “low,” “medium,” and “high” socioeconomic status based on student reports of 

their parents’ occupations. For more information about this classification, see “Construction of Socioeconomic Status 

Variable” in appendix A. Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores 

on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of 

items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. 

The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because 

PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD 

countries and are not included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 

15-year-old student population. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

70

Table B-7. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by parent national origin and 

country: 2000

Country

Overall 

Both parents 

 foreign born

One parent native born and 

one parent foreign born

Both parents 

 native born

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 8.9 0.18 7.9 0.09 83.2 0.22

OECD countries

Australia 22.8 1.81 19.0 0.91 58.3 1.56

Austria 9.7 0.88 6.4 0.49 83.9 1.09

Belgium 12.0 1.10 11.6 0.61 76.4 1.32

Canada 20.5 1.02 10.7 0.26 68.8 1.05

Czech Republic1 1.0 0.14 7.2 0.37 91.8 0.42

Denmark 6.1 0.56 7.3 0.44 86.6 0.70

Finland 1.2 0.20 2.2 0.22 96.6 0.31

France 12.0 0.87 12.9 0.62 75.1 1.13

Germany1 15.3 0.78 6.4 0.40 78.3 0.93

Greece 4.8 0.87 5.8 0.56 89.4 1.11

Hungary 1.7 0.20 2.1 0.21 96.3 0.33

Iceland 0.8 0.16 5.5 0.45 93.8 0.49

Ireland 2.3 0.30 9.3 0.57 88.4 0.66

Italy 0.9 0.21 4.0 0.28 95.0 0.33

Japan1 0.1 0.06 0.4 0.08 99.5 0.10

Korea, Republic of — — — — — —

Luxembourg 34.2 0.71 14.6 0.65 51.2 0.84

Mexico 3.6 0.36 1.9 0.17 94.5 0.41

New Zealand 19.7 1.08 17.5 0.62 62.9 1.13

Norway 4.6 0.43 6.3 0.41 89.1 0.61

Poland 0.3 0.12 1.7 0.29 98.0 0.34

Portugal 3.1 0.28 6.8 0.43 90.1 0.49

Spain 2.0 0.38 3.9 0.34 94.1 0.47

Sweden 10.5 0.95 10.8 0.56 78.7 1.04

Switzerland 20.5 0.89 16.0 0.72 63.5 1.06

United Kingdom 9.2 1.22 8.7 0.55 82.0 1.46

United States 13.6 2.13 5.8 0.74 80.6 2.69

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 0.4 0.10 1.1 0.21 98.5 0.24

Latvia 21.6 2.36 18.2 0.91 60.2 2.79

Liechtenstein 20.2 2.05 24.9 2.58 54.9 2.89

Russian Federation 4.4 0.63 9.0 0.43 86.6 0.83

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

71

Table B-7. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by parent national origin and 

country: 2000—Continued

Country

Level 1 or below

Both parents 

 foreign born

One parent native born and 

one parent foreign born

Both parents 

 native born

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 17.5 0.50 7.1 0.22 75.4 0.54

OECD countries

Australia 27.4 3.11 15.0 2.42 57.6 3.25

Austria 27.2 2.24 6.9 1.35 66.0 2.83

Belgium 32.0 3.70 14.1 1.31 53.9 3.62

Canada 27.4 2.40 8.4 0.94 64.2 2.12

Czech Republic1 1.9 0.51 5.6 1.07 92.5 1.23

Denmark 15.6 2.01 8.1 1.36 76.3 2.25

Finland 5.2 1.32 2.2 0.81 92.6 1.67

France 22.2 2.79 14.5 1.69 63.3 3.27

Germany1 35.4 2.48 6.4 0.87 58.2 2.40

Greece 9.4 2.19 5.0 1.00 85.6 2.74

Hungary 1.7 0.53 2.1 0.55 96.3 0.77

Iceland 2.0 0.66 6.8 1.34 91.2 1.50

Ireland 1.4 0.66 9.8 1.72 88.8 1.89

Italy 1.7 0.70 2.9 0.64 95.4 0.90

Japan1 ‡ † ‡ † 99.7 0.37

Korea, Republic of — — — — — —

Luxembourg 58.9 1.44 12.4 1.08 28.7 1.30

Mexico 6.8 0.75 2.3 0.30 90.9 0.80

New Zealand 29.9 3.22 13.1 1.81 57.0 3.24

Norway 9.2 1.15 5.9 0.95 85.0 1.42

Poland 0.8 0.46 2.1 0.54 97.1 0.82

Portugal 3.8 0.84 4.7 0.98 91.4 1.19

Spain 3.7 1.14 5.7 1.16 90.6 1.57

Sweden 23.5 2.56 9.5 1.76 67.0 2.82

Switzerland 45.6 1.80 11.8 1.22 42.5 1.91

United Kingdom 15.9 3.26 7.6 1.24 76.6 3.98

United States 21.8 3.57 8.0 1.36 70.1 4.54

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 0.6 0.16 1.1 0.25 98.3 0.29

Latvia 22.1 2.50 18.8 1.88 59.1 3.50

Liechtenstein 38.3 7.04 26.0 6.56 35.7 7.47

Russian Federation 4.8 0.84 8.2 0.86 87.0 1.15

—Not available.

†Not applicable.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases). 

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In 

order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. 

Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the 

average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD 

study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included 

in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population. 

s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or some data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

72

Table B-8. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by student national origin and 

country: 2000 

Country

Overall Level 1 or below

Student

foreign born

Student

native born

Student

foreign born

Student

native born

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 6.6 0.12 93.4 0.12 12.4 0.37 87.6 0.37

OECD countries

Australia 13.0 1.19 87.1 1.19 17.8 2.72 82.2 2.72

Austria 7.2 0.72 92.8 0.72 20.4 2.38 79.6 2.38

Belgium 5.8 0.49 94.2 0.49 11.3 1.61 88.7 1.61

Canada 10.7 0.60 89.4 0.60 18.5 1.83 81.5 1.83

Czech Republic1 1.0 0.15 99.0 0.15 1.7 0.53 98.3 0.53

Denmark 6.3 0.48 93.7 0.48 12.3 1.56 87.7 1.56

Finland 2.5 0.29 97.5 0.29 6.3 1.44 93.7 1.44

France 3.5 0.33 96.5 0.33 7.8 1.18 92.2 1.18

Germany1 11.3 0.59 88.7 0.59 25.5 2.53 74.5 2.53

Greece 6.6 1.04 93.4 1.04 11.7 2.66 88.3 2.66

Hungary 2.2 0.24 97.8 0.24 2.3 0.63 97.7 0.63

Iceland 5.9 0.40 94.1 0.40 7.5 1.28 92.5 1.28

Ireland 4.2 0.41 95.8 0.41 2.4 0.93 97.6 0.93

Italy 2.2 0.27 97.8 0.27 3.7 0.83 96.3 0.83

Japan 0.2 0.08 99.8 0.08 ‡ † 99.4 0.42

Korea, Republic of — — — — — — — —

Luxembourg 18.6 0.64 81.4 0.64 33.4 1.51 66.6 1.51

Mexico 3.2 0.39 96.8 0.39 5.8 0.77 94.2 0.77

New Zealand 16.8 0.91 83.3 0.91 22.9 2.69 77.1 2.69

Norway 5.5 0.40 94.5 0.40 9.7 1.11 90.3 1.11

Poland 1.0 0.24 99.0 0.24 2.2 0.84 97.8 0.84

Portugal 6.0 0.48 94.0 0.48 6.6 0.91 93.4 0.91

Spain 2.5 0.43 97.5 0.43 33.3 1.79 66.7 1.79

Sweden 8.3 0.61 91.7 0.61 18.5 2.66 81.5 2.66

Switzerland 14.1 0.68 85.9 0.68 4.4 1.33 95.6 1.33

United Kingdom 5.5 0.63 94.5 0.63 9.9 1.63 90.1 1.63

United States 7.3 0.96 92.7 0.96 12.1 1.97 87.9 1.97

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 0.2 0.09 99.8 0.09 0.3 0.13 99.8 0.13

Latvia 30.5 3.38 69.5 3.38 30.0 3.77 70.0 3.77

Liechtenstein 12.9 1.83 87.1 1.83 30.4 6.78 69.6 6.78

Russian Federation 5.4 0.51 94.6 0.51 4.8 0.73 95.2 0.73

—Not available.

†Not applicable.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In 

order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. 

Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is 

the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an 

OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not 

included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student 

population. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Findings From PISA 2000

73

Table B-9. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by parent education and 

country: 2000 

Country

Overall Level 1 or below

Less than college

Completed college 

or higher Less than college

Completed college 

or higher

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 60.0 0.29 40.0 0.29 73.7 0.49 26.3 0.49

OECD countries

Australia 55.8 1.37 44.2 1.37 72.0 2.63 28.0 2.63

Austria 71.3 0.91 28.7 0.91 83.8 2.16 16.2 2.16

Belgium 53.3 0.99 46.7 0.99 57.9 2.49 42.1 2.49

Canada 34.5 0.51 65.5 0.51 50.4 1.60 49.6 1.60

Czech Republic 76.3 0.88 23.8 0.88 88.1 1.40 11.9 1.40

Denmark1 43.0 1.09 57.0 1.09 63.2 2.28 36.8 2.28

Finland 63.5 1.12 36.5 1.12 72.5 3.67 27.5 3.67

France 54.9 1.14 45.1 1.14 61.4 2.29 38.6 2.29

Germany2 58.1 0.97 41.9 0.97 70.5 2.73 29.5 2.73

Greece1 56.3 1.36 43.7 1.36 66.4 2.23 33.6 2.23

Hungary 71.9 1.37 28.1 1.37 87.1 1.55 13.0 1.55

Iceland 63.7 0.87 36.3 0.87 69.1 2.48 31.0 2.48

Ireland 60.2 1.30 39.9 1.30 63.4 2.90 36.6 2.90

Italy 79.0 0.93 21.0 0.93 86.0 1.73 14.0 1.73

Japan3 ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ †

Korea, Republic of1 71.2 1.43 28.8 1.43 ‡ † ‡ †

Luxembourg 70.5 0.68 29.5 0.68 81.3 1.72 18.7 1.72

Mexico 77.0 1.82 23.0 1.82 87.8 1.18 12.2 1.18

New Zealand1 43.0 1.04 57.0 1.04 49.7 2.97 50.3 2.97

Norway 44.5 1.26 55.5 1.26 48.9 2.85 51.1 2.85

Poland 76.6 1.08 23.4 1.08 88.9 1.50 11.1 1.50

Portugal 78.7 1.32 21.3 1.32 87.8 1.50 12.2 1.50

Spain 72.3 1.63 27.7 1.63 84.7 1.59 15.3 1.59

Sweden 39.9 1.03 60.1 1.03 42.2 2.36 57.8 2.36

Switzerland 61.1 1.19 38.9 1.19 73.4 1.93 26.6 1.93

United Kingdom1 48.4 1.05 51.6 1.05 57.8 2.39 42.2 2.39

United States1, 2 45.5 2.73 54.5 2.73 60.2 3.41 39.8 3.41

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 77.9 1.21 22.1 1.21 83.5 1.15 16.5 1.15

Latvia 55.4 1.40 44.6 1.40 60.2 2.04 39.8 2.04

Liechtenstein 66.9 2.98 33.1 2.98 80.2 5.58 19.9 5.58

Russian Federation 55.2 1.30 44.8 1.30 59.8 1.54 40.2 1.54

†Not applicable.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly accounted for.

2The item response rate for students overall is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly accounted for. 

3The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 50 percent. 

NOTE: The parent education variable is based on students’ reports. Students’ reports of parents’ educational attainment may be 

inaccurate as some students either do not know or exaggerate parent education. Due to reliability concerns, parent education 

data for Japan are not presented in this report. Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading 

literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority 

of items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The 

OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is 

principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and 

are not included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student 

population. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or data not reported, or both.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment 

(PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

74

Table B-10. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by language spoken at home 

most of the time and country: 2000 

Country

Overall Level 1 or below

Other than 

the test language Test language

Other than 

the test language Test language

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 8.6 0.17 91.4 0.17 17.1 0.51 82.9 0.51

OECD countries

Australia 17.2 1.64 82.9 1.64 24.5 3.27 75.6 3.27

Austria 6.7 0.71 93.3 0.71 20.3 2.24 79.7 2.24

Belgium1 22.9 1.01 77.1 1.01 27.3 2.31 72.7 2.31

Canada 11.5 0.59 88.5 0.59 20.7 1.61 79.4 1.61

Czech Republic 0.8 0.19 99.2 0.19 1.9 0.90 98.1 0.90

Denmark 6.7 0.45 93.3 0.45 16.7 1.75 83.3 1.75

Finland 5.8 0.29 94.2 0.29 13.6 2.49 86.4 2.49

France 5.1 0.53 94.9 0.53 12.4 1.71 87.6 1.71

Germany1 7.9 0.75 92.1 0.75 21.9 3.26 78.1 3.26

Greece 2.8 0.58 97.2 0.58 6.5 2.02 93.5 2.02

Hungary — — — — — — — —

Iceland 1.9 0.28 98.1 0.28 4.7 1.04 95.4 1.04

Ireland 2.0 0.52 98.1 0.52 2.3 1.02 97.7 1.02

Italy 18.0 1.13 82.0 1.13 33.8 2.73 66.3 2.73

Japan 0.3 0.09 99.7 0.09 ‡ † 99.6 0.38

Korea, Republic of — — — — — — — —

Luxembourg 28.8 0.63 71.2 0.63 50.5 1.47 49.5 1.47

Mexico 1.7 0.47 98.3 0.47 3.0 0.98 97.0 0.98

New Zealand1 10.3 0.65 89.7 0.65 25.9 2.85 74.1 2.85

Norway 6.3 0.46 93.7 0.46 13.9 1.44 86.2 1.44

Poland 1.0 0.24 99.0 0.24 2.2 0.73 97.8 0.73

Portugal 1.5 0.22 98.5 0.22 2.6 0.56 97.4 0.56

Spain 14.7 1.45 85.4 1.45 15.0 2.90 85.0 2.90

Sweden 7.4 0.65 92.6 0.65 18.3 2.51 81.7 2.51

Switzerland 18.9 0.81 81.1 0.81 42.4 1.81 57.6 1.81

United Kingdom 4.1 0.68 95.9 0.68 9.5 2.54 90.5 2.54

United States 10.8 2.36 89.2 2.36 23.5 5.40 76.5 5.40

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 0.8 0.17 99.2 0.17 0.9 0.25 99.1 0.25

Latvia 7.0 0.94 93.0 0.94 9.2 1.61 90.9 1.61

Liechtenstein 26.9 2.38 73.1 2.38 44.8 7.29 55.2 7.29

Russian Federation 7.3 2.07 92.7 2.07 10.2 3.60 89.8 3.60

—Not available.

†Not applicable.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In 

order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. 

Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the 

average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD 

study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not included 

in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population. 

s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or some data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

75

Table B-11. Average index scores for 15-year-old 

students’ engagement in reading, by 

country: 2000 

Country Index score s.e.

OECD average 0.00 0.004

OECD countries

Australia -0.04 0.025

Austria -0.08 0.034

Belgium -0.28 0.017

Canada 0.01 0.012

Czech Republic 0.02 0.020

Denmark 0.26 0.016

Finland 0.46 0.020

France -0.18 0.019

Germany -0.26 0.025

Greece -0.09 0.021

Hungary 0.03 0.021

Iceland 0.27 0.015

Ireland -0.20 0.022

Italy -0.08 0.025

Japan 0.20 0.027

Korea, Republic of 0.21 0.021

Luxembourg -0.19 0.017

Mexico 0.07 0.018

New Zealand 0.05 0.021

Norway 0.09 0.018

Poland -0.10 0.027

Portugal 0.13 0.019

Spain -0.23 0.020

Sweden 0.14 0.020

Switzerland # †

United Kingdom -0.10 0.020

United States -0.14 0.033

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 0.11 0.019

Latvia -0.04 0.022

Liechtenstein -0.13 0.058

Russian Federation 0.17 0.014

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Engagement in reading is based on an index of student reports 

of the extent to which they agreed with items designed to measure 

engagement in reading, such as “I read only if I have to” and “I find it 

hard to finish books.” The indices were standardized so that the mean 

of the index value for the OECD student population was zero and the 

standard deviation was one (countries being given equal weight in the 

standardization process). See the Description of Variables section in 

appendix A for more information about the engagement in reading index. 

The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD 

member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD 

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

those of the OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. 

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

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

Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

76

Table B-12. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 

1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by level of engagement in 

reading and country: 2000 

Country

Overall 

Low engagement Medium engagement High engagement

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 25.0 0.20 38.3 0.16 25.0 0.18

OECD countries

Australia 26.4 1.09 49.0 0.80 24.6 1.03

Austria 31.0 1.05 42.9 0.91 26.1 1.06

Belgium 37.4 0.97 43.3 0.79 19.2 0.58

Canada 26.9 0.49 45.9 0.40 27.3 0.46

Czech Republic 23.6 0.82 51.3 0.91 25.1 0.79

Denmark 18.0 0.69 47.3 0.86 34.7 0.78

Finland 12.9 0.58 45.7 0.88 41.5 0.89

France 31.0 0.79 48.9 0.82 20.1 0.65

Germany 37.1 1.01 41.2 0.77 21.7 0.81

Greece 20.9 0.82 64.5 0.85 14.6 0.68

Hungary 21.6 0.94 53.9 0.82 24.5 0.92

Iceland 15.4 0.59 51.4 0.78 33.3 0.65

Ireland 32.0 1.03 48.4 0.88 19.6 0.88

Italy 27.2 1.04 51.0 0.93 21.8 0.82

Japan 20.2 0.83 49.3 0.74 30.5 1.08

Korea, Republic of 17.5 0.67 52.6 0.74 29.9 0.77

Luxembourg 33.4 0.76 46.0 0.88 20.6 0.64

Mexico 16.3 0.67 62.2 0.87 21.5 0.72

New Zealand 21.3 0.80 53.0 0.94 25.7 0.83

Norway 22.5 0.76 49.4 0.88 28.1 0.79

Poland 25.3 1.13 56.9 1.10 17.9 0.90

Portugal 18.1 0.78 54.9 0.89 27.0 0.84

Spain 32.2 0.97 50.8 0.74 17.0 0.70

Sweden 22.4 0.82 47.2 0.71 30.4 0.73

Switzerland 27.5 0.98 43.8 0.93 28.7 1.12

United Kingdom 28.0 0.74 49.8 0.66 22.2 0.77

United States 30.7 1.42 47.9 1.17 21.5 1.02

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 21.5 0.82 50.8 0.99 27.7 0.89

Latvia 21.3 0.99 60.4 1.03 18.3 0.89

Liechtenstein 33.3 2.75 43.2 3.08 23.5 2.43

Russian Federation 16.4 0.69 54.7 0.64 28.9 0.85

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

77

Table B-12. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 

1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by level of engagement in 

reading and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Level 1 or below

Low engagement Medium engagement High engagement

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 41.9 0.50 48.0 0.45 10.1 0.26

OECD countries

Australia 50.2 2.93 43.4 2.49 6.4 1.52

Austria 53.1 2.31 39.7 2.13 7.2 1.21

Belgium 53.2 2.94 39.3 2.31 7.6 1.09

Canada 50.1 1.59 41.0 1.36 8.9 1.05

Czech Republic1 48.4 2.23 43.8 2.48 7.8 1.39

Denmark 38.2 1.96 48.6 2.13 13.2 1.57

Finland 37.2 4.44 52.9 4.80 9.9 2.26

France 48.7 2.21 42.2 2.21 9.2 1.16

Germany1 58.4 2.00 32.9 1.80 8.7 1.26

Greece 31.9 1.59 59.2 1.99 8.9 1.38

Hungary 40.8 2.20 50.6 1.94 8.6 1.31

Iceland 38.5 2.53 50.2 2.69 11.3 1.67

Ireland 55.9 3.30 37.7 3.01 6.4 1.88

Italy 39.9 2.05 47.7 2.09 48.4 3.68

Japan 35.9 2.80 12.1 2.05 12.1 2.05

Korea, Republic of 44.5 2.88 47.9 2.84 7.6 2.17

Luxembourg 43.6 1.58 44.9 1.50 11.5 0.94

Mexico 21.6 1.29 64.4 1.43 14.1 1.02

New Zealand 37.3 2.90 50.8 3.07 11.9 1.94

Norway 44.9 2.97 47.3 2.64 7.8 1.37

Poland 37.8 1.93 51.6 1.98 10.6 1.08

Portugal 29.4 1.89 57.1 1.96 13.5 1.39

Spain 53.5 1.96 41.5 2.04 5.0 1.00

Sweden 45.3 2.89 45.6 2.55 9.1 1.39

Switzerland 48.5 2.02 41.7 1.88 9.8 1.08

United Kingdom 48.1 2.61 43.4 2.61 8.4 1.42

United States 49.2 3.28 39.3 2.73 11.5 1.70

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 27.4 1.24 52.4 1.24 20.2 0.98

Latvia 33.6 2.03 55.0 1.96 11.3 1.76

Liechtenstein 58.8 6.89 31.8 6.28 9.4 3.99

Russian Federation 23.7 1.76 55.6 1.82 20.7 1.32

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below for this category is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been 

explicitly accounted for.

NOTE: Engagement in reading is based on an index of student reports of the extent to which they agreed with items 

designed to measure engagement in reading, such as “I read only if I have to” and “I find it hard to finish books.” Students 

with index scores in the lowest quarter were categorized as having “low” engagement in reading (index value of -0.66 or 

lower), and students with index scores in the top quarter (index value of 0.58 or higher) were classified as having “high” 

engagement in reading. See the Description of Variables section in appendix A for more information about the engagement 

in reading index. Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 

2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that 

level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average 

is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an 

OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and are not 

included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student 

population. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding, or some data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

78

Table B-13. Average index scores of 15-year-old 

students’ sense of belonging in school, by 

country: 2000

Country Index score s.e.

OECD average 0.00 0.004

OECD countries

Australia -0.05 0.020

Austria 0.26 0.023

Belgium -0.21 0.013

Canada 0.12 0.011

Czech Republic -0.29 0.016

Denmark 0.13 0.022

Finland 0.02 0.014

France -0.14 0.016

Germany 0.18 0.018

Greece -0.02 0.020

Hungary 0.14 0.016

Iceland 0.14 0.018

Ireland 0.08 0.017

Italy # †

Japan -0.35 0.019

Korea, Republic of -0.39 0.016

Luxembourg 0.05 0.018

Mexico 0.09 0.022

New Zealand -0.02 0.019

Norway 0.12 0.022

Poland -0.39 0.019

Portugal 0.01 0.019

Spain -0.01 0.017

Sweden 0.27 0.018

Switzerland 0.20 0.020

United Kingdom 0.13 0.014

United States -0.06 0.031

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 0.22 0.024

Latvia -0.36 0.021

Liechtenstein 0.21 0.055

Russian Federation -0.24 0.016

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Sense of belonging in school is based on an index of student 

reports of the extent to which they agreed with items designed to measure 

sense of belonging in school, such as “I feel that I belong in school” and 

“other students like me.” The indices were standardized so that the mean 

of the index value for the OECD student population was zero and the 

standard deviation was one (countries being given equal weight in the 

standardization process). See the Description of Variables section in 

appendix A for more information about the sense of belonging in school 

index. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the 

OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an 

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

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

average. s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

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

Questionnaire, 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

79

Table B-14. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by level of sense of belonging 

in school and country: 2000

Country

Overall

Low sense of 

belonging

Medium sense of 

belonging

High sense of 

belonging

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 25.0 0.16 38.3 0.16 36.7 0.18

OECD countries

Australia 21.0 0.78 46.4 0.76 32.6 0.90

Austria 20.7 0.69 28.7 0.77 50.6 0.99

Belgium 32.0 0.63 40.9 0.54 27.0 0.62

Canada 20.7 0.37 38.6 0.38 40.7 0.50

Czech Republic 30.7 0.71 48.5 0.75 20.7 0.76

Denmark 21.4 0.70 36.6 0.85 42.0 1.05

Finland 21.7 0.68 39.0 0.71 39.3 0.78

France 30.5 0.75 38.5 0.73 31.0 0.79

Germany 23.2 0.60 30.6 0.91 46.1 0.87

Greece 23.1 0.83 43.5 0.88 33.3 0.95

Hungary 19.2 0.58 38.3 0.88 42.5 0.85

Iceland 22.8 0.73 33.1 0.83 44.1 0.83

Ireland 19.6 0.68 40.9 0.81 39.5 0.78

Italy 23.1 0.85 40.5 0.77 36.3 0.64

Japan 38.3 0.98 39.4 0.70 22.3 0.77

Korea, Republic of 41.6 1.07 38.8 0.87 19.6 0.70

Luxembourg 29.1 0.82 30.3 0.80 40.6 0.75

Mexico 22.4 0.89 37.2 0.79 40.4 1.01

New Zealand 21.8 0.74 43.3 0.76 34.9 0.88

Norway 21.9 0.86 33.7 0.83 44.4 0.95

Poland 42.5 1.18 37.5 1.05 20.0 0.92

Portugal 21.2 0.93 44.0 0.79 34.8 0.94

Spain 24.4 0.72 39.3 1.08 36.3 1.08

Sweden 18.3 0.55 29.7 0.71 52.0 0.86

Switzerland 21.5 0.68 31.9 0.80 46.6 0.88

United Kingdom 17.9 0.55 40.3 0.69 41.8 0.64

United States 25.2 1.01 43.8 0.87 31.0 1.20

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 17.7 0.74 38.5 0.88 43.8 1.07

Latvia 36.5 1.05 43.0 0.97 20.4 0.78

Liechtenstein 25.0 2.19 26.8 2.45 48.2 2.54

Russian Federation 34.2 0.99 41.0 0.75 24.7 0.77

See notes at end of table.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

80

Table B-14. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by level of sense of belonging 

in school and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Level 1 or below

Low sense of 

belonging

Medium sense of 

belonging

High sense of 

belonging

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 35.2 0.36 35.8 0.38 29.1 0.44

OECD countries

Australia 28.6 2.41 41.2 2.89 30.2 2.83

Austria 28.4 2.44 29.4 1.81 42.1 2.67

Belgium 43.0 1.69 36.2 1.79 20.8 1.26

Canada 31.5 1.37 34.7 1.39 33.8 1.41

Czech Republic 42.9 1.99 44.0 2.35 13.2 1.27

Denmark 27.9 1.90 36.3 2.29 35.8 2.18

Finland 26.1 2.83 36.8 3.25 37.0 3.93

France 39.8 2.33 35.3 2.13 24.9 1.67

Germany 31.7 1.99 30.2 2.09 38.1 1.83

Greece 33.3 2.17 39.1 2.45 27.6 1.91

Hungary 29.2 1.75 39.4 2.52 31.4 2.55

Iceland 29.3 2.12 30.5 2.19 40.2 2.31

Ireland 24.7 2.63 40.3 2.65 35.0 2.56

Italy 29.5 2.12 36.5 1.75 34.5 3.52

Japan 50.3 3.40 32.1 3.21 17.6 1.80

Korea, Republic of 55.0 4.13 32.2 4.05 12.8 2.37

Luxembourg 41.5 1.81 29.2 1.62 29.3 1.68

Mexico 30.2 1.39 39.4 1.36 30.4 1.46

New Zealand 34.6 2.28 41.0 2.38 24.3 2.23

Norway 32.7 2.22 30.4 2.38 36.9 2.09

Poland 61.2 2.22 27.7 1.92 11.1 1.33

Portugal 39.4 1.94 41.3 1.63 19.3 1.59

Spain 33.4 2.19 37.2 2.14 29.4 2.42

Sweden 21.8 2.01 30.4 2.13 47.8 2.42

Switzerland 30.8 1.96 31.3 1.78 37.9 1.64

United Kingdom 27.4 2.28 43.9 2.53 28.7 2.00

United States 42.8 3.07 38.8 2.13 18.4 2.21

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 19.7 0.98 41.1 1.20 39.2 1.27

Latvia 45.0 1.80 39.9 1.70 15.1 1.24

Liechtenstein 36.7 5.93 26.1 6.15 37.2 5.74

Russian Federation 41.4 1.46 40.4 1.37 18.3 1.02

NOTE: Sense of belonging in school is based on an index of student reports of the extent to which they agreed with 

items designed to measure sense of belonging in school, such as ”I feel that I belong in school” and ”other students like 

me.” Students with index scores in the lowest quarter were categorized as having a “low” sense of belonging (value of 

-0.61 or lower), and students with index scores in the top quarter (value of 0.48 of higher) were categorized as having a 

“high” sense of belonging. See the Description of Variables section in appendix A for more information about the sense 

of belonging in school index. Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy 

scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of 

items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The 

OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is 

principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD member 

countries and are not included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 

15-year-old student population. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

81

Table B-15. Average index scores of 15-year-old 

students’ effort and perseverance in 

schoolwork, by country: 2000

Country Index score s.e.

OECD average 0.00 0.004

OECD countries

Australia 0.02 0.022

Austria 0.18 0.019

Belgium 0.05 0.021

Canada — —

Czech Republic -0.13 0.016

Denmark -0.05 0.015

Finland -0.03 0.017

France — —

Germany 0.07 0.015

Greece — —

Hungary 0.24 0.022

Iceland -0.09 0.017

Ireland -0.03 0.020

Italy 0.04 0.022

Japan — —

Korea, Republic of -0.39 0.022

Luxembourg -0.02 0.020

Mexico 0.19 0.021

New Zealand -0.02 0.020

Norway -0.16 0.018

Poland — —

Portugal 0.17 0.020

Spain — —

Sweden 0.02 0.019

Switzerland 0.01 0.020

United Kingdom1 ‡ †

United States -0.08 0.030

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 0.40 0.025

Latvia -0.25 0.015

Liechtenstein 0.09 0.055

Russian Federation -0.04 0.018

—Not available.

†Not applicable.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1The item response rate is below 50 percent. 

NOTE: Effort and perseverance in schoolwork is based on an index of 

student reports of the extent to which they agreed with items designed 

to measure effort and perseverance in schoolwork, such as “I work as 

hard as possible” and “I keep working even if the material is difficult.” The 

indices were standardized so that the mean of the index value for the 

OECD student population was zero and the standard deviation was one 

(countries being given equal weight in the standardization process). See the 

Description of Variables section in appendix A for more information about 

the effort and perseverance in schoolwork index. The OECD average is the 

average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data 

available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for nonOECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries 

and are not included in the OECD average. s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

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

Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

82

Table B-16. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by effort and perseverance 

in schoolwork and country: 2000

Country

Overall 

Low effort and 

perseverance

Medium effort and 

perseverance

High effort and 

perseverance

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 30.6 0.17 41.9 0.19 27.5 0.19

OECD countries

Australia 29.9 0.86 42.9 0.94 27.1 0.99

Austria 23.9 0.70 41.4 0.87 34.7 0.95

Belgium1 29.9 0.92 40.8 0.88 29.4 0.86

Canada — — — — — —

Czech Republic 35.2 0.82 44.4 0.72 20.5 0.66

Denmark 31.8 0.74 43.1 0.80 25.0 0.69

Finland 29.5 0.84 46.0 0.85 24.4 0.72

France — — — — — —

Germany 27.2 0.66 42.0 0.78 30.8 0.77

Greece — — — — — —

Hungary 19.1 0.74 47.3 0.83 33.6 0.97

Iceland 34.3 0.78 40.8 0.79 24.9 0.72

Ireland 33.3 0.83 36.5 0.80 30.2 0.75

Italy 28.4 0.77 42.8 0.89 28.8 0.93

Japan — — — — — —

Korea, Republic of 47.4 0.92 34.7 0.78 17.9 0.74

Luxembourg 33.1 0.91 39.5 0.95 27.3 0.81

Mexico 24.2 0.74 40.8 0.92 35.0 1.06

New Zealand 30.9 1.01 44.0 0.94 25.0 0.83

Norway 34.2 0.86 44.5 0.92 21.3 0.67

Poland — — — — — —

Portugal 26.6 0.89 40.9 0.82 32.5 0.89

Spain — — — — — —

Sweden 29.4 0.83 42.9 0.78 27.8 0.89

Switzerland 29.5 0.88 43.3 0.74 27.1 0.86

United Kingdom2 ‡ † ‡ † ‡ †

United States 35.6 1.08 39.0 1.02 25.4 1.09

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 17.0 0.84 39.2 0.92 43.9 1.05

Latvia 39.7 0.93 46.0 0.93 14.4 0.68

Liechtenstein 27.5 2.53 39.9 2.36 32.6 2.40

Russian Federation 32.5 0.69 41.1 0.58 26.4 0.76

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

83

Table B-16. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by effort and perseverance 

in schoolwork and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Level 1 or below

Low effort and 

perseverance

Medium effort and 

perseverance

High effort and 

perseverance

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 36.9 0.57 40.2 0.54 22.8 0.49

OECD countries

Australia 40.5 3.07 38.5 3.11 21.1 2.55

Austria 24.3 1.69 44.6 2.36 31.1 2.11

Belgium3 ‡ † ‡ † ‡ †

Canada — — — — — —

Czech Republic4 41.8 1.91 41.4 2.34 16.8 1.91

Denmark 42.5 2.04 40.5 2.04 17.0 1.73

Finland 43.6 3.66 40.3 3.68 16.1 3.81

France — — — — — —

Germany4 34.5 2.13 44.7 2.15 20.9 2.12

Greece — — — — — —

Hungary 26.3 2.24 45.1 2.17 28.6 2.30

Iceland 49.1 3.43 35.5 2.89 15.4 1.96

Ireland 38.1 2.85 34.0 2.21 27.9 2.96

Italy 32.1 1.91 41.6 1.79 26.3 1.54

Japan — — — — — —

Korea, Republic of 67.4 3.67 22.7 3.35 9.9 2.26

Luxembourg4 40.3 1.79 38.6 1.97 21.2 1.78

Mexico4 28.4 1.39 40.9 1.32 30.7 1.67

New Zealand 42.3 2.62 40.1 2.54 17.6 2.70

Norway 50.1 2.16 38.5 1.98 11.4 1.37

Poland — — — — — —

Portugal 35.6 1.83 42.3 1.76 22.0 1.42

Spain — — — — — —

Sweden 37.8 2.73 40.4 2.92 21.8 2.35

Switzerland 31.0 2.08 44.7 1.97 24.3 1.68

United Kingdom2 ‡ † ‡ † ‡ †

United States 44.6 2.78 34.2 2.95 21.2 2.33

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 21.7 1.29 41.4 1.72 36.9 1.54

Latvia 44.7 1.91 43.6 2.02 11.6 1.22

Liechtenstein 43.1 6.24 31.6 6.16 25.2 5.76

Russian Federation 41.5 1.41 39.3 1.43 19.3 1.31

—Not available.

†Not applicable.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases). 

1The item response rate for students overall is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly accounted for.

2The item response rates are below 50 percent. 

3The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 50 percent.

4The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly accounted for.

NOTE: Effort and perseverance in schoolwork is based on an index of student reports of the extent to which they agreed with items 

designed to measure effort and perseverance in schoolwork, such as ”I work as hard as possible” and ”I keep working even if the 

material is difficult.” Students with index scores in the lowest quarter were categorized as having “low” effort and perseverance (value 

of -0.64 or lower) and students with index scores in the top quarter (value of 0.69 of higher) were categorized as having “high” effort 

and perseverance. See the Description of Variables section in appendix A for more information about this index. Students were classified 

into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must 

have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale 

were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data 

available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the 

OECD countries and are not included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-yearold student population. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment 

(PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

84

Table B-17. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of missing 

school and country: 2000

Country

Overall 

Never missed school

Missed school 1 or 

2 times

Missed school 3 or 

more times

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 63.9 0.18 27.4 0.14 8.7 0.10

OECD countries

Australia 57.2 1.14 34.5 1.11 8.3 0.47

Austria 63.2 1.00 31.6 0.86 5.2 0.40

Belgium 71.2 0.90 20.8 0.89 8.1 0.49

Canada 52.5 0.43 37.2 0.45 10.3 0.30

Czech Republic 46.9 1.06 38.3 0.80 14.8 0.68

Denmark 50.0 0.83 33.8 0.71 16.2 0.67

Finland 56.7 0.91 32.9 0.76 10.4 0.56

France 65.2 0.93 26.1 0.72 8.6 0.47

Germany 73.4 0.82 21.5 0.69 5.1 0.40

Greece 69.1 0.98 23.9 0.78 7.0 0.46

Hungary 66.6 0.91 23.3 0.84 10.1 0.50

Iceland 63.0 0.83 22.4 0.79 14.7 0.65

Ireland 57.3 0.92 33.8 0.88 8.9 0.46

Italy 44.1 1.16 41.7 0.89 14.2 0.72

Japan 89.3 0.81 9.1 0.70 1.6 0.26

Korea, Republic of 79.8 0.73 13.8 0.50 6.3 0.52

Luxembourg 72.6 0.65 21.1 0.64 6.3 0.40

Mexico 67.5 0.98 27.7 0.88 4.8 0.35

New Zealand 55.0 1.05 33.3 0.93 11.7 0.47

Norway 64.8 0.98 26.5 0.80 8.7 0.53

Poland 55.9 1.48 31.0 1.00 13.1 0.81

Portugal 83.6 0.67 13.6 0.60 2.8 0.29

Spain 66.3 0.91 25.7 0.70 8.0 0.42

Sweden 62.2 0.78 29.4 0.77 8.5 0.42

Switzerland 67.7 0.80 25.4 0.69 6.9 0.47

United Kingdom 65.1 0.86 28.1 0.84 6.9 0.44

United States 59.1 1.53 32.8 1.32 8.2 0.53

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 45.4 1.48 37.0 1.16 17.6 1.09

Latvia 61.7 1.54 29.6 1.02 8.7 0.83

Liechtenstein 81.6 1.93 13.5 1.74 4.9 1.30

Russian Federation 64.6 1.11 26.2 0.94 9.3 0.44

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

85

Table B-17. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of missing 

school and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Level 1 or below

Never missed school

Missed school 

1 or 2 times

Missed school 

3 or more times

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 54.7 0.43 29.7 0.39 15.6 0.34

OECD countries

Australia 47.2 2.56 41.3 2.91 11.4 1.83

Austria 62.7 2.61 28.9 2.25 8.4 1.55

Belgium 50.5 2.15 28.5 3.03 21.0 1.93

Canada 42.5 1.61 36.7 1.67 20.8 1.48

Czech Republic1 34.1 2.30 34.8 2.02 31.2 2.00

Denmark 43.6 2.41 32.5 1.96 23.9 1.94

Finland 49.7 3.86 30.2 3.89 20.1 2.66

France 46.4 2.73 31.8 2.28 21.8 2.32

Germany1 63.9 2.31 25.1 1.67 11.1 1.54

Greece 57.3 1.96 28.7 1.53 14.0 1.23

Hungary 57.5 2.36 25.5 2.04 17.0 1.51

Iceland 53.1 2.51 22.8 2.26 24.1 1.96

Ireland 49.8 2.55 33.5 2.60 16.7 1.98

Italy 25.9 2.12 44.2 2.35 29.8 2.39

Japan 75.5 3.24 18.0 2.77 6.6 1.57

Korea, Republic of 65.2 3.16 20.1 2.85 14.7 2.17

Luxembourg 64.4 1.63 25.5 1.52 10.2 0.94

Mexico 62.3 1.48 31.7 1.33 6.0 0.70

New Zealand 41.0 2.27 32.6 2.56 26.5 2.24

Norway 57.1 2.20 28.1 1.94 14.9 1.41

Poland 45.4 2.29 32.9 1.95 21.7 1.59

Portugal 76.8 1.47 17.8 1.46 5.4 0.81

Spain 50.8 2.48 32.6 2.28 16.6 1.46

Sweden 58.1 2.56 29.8 2.57 12.1 1.56

Switzerland 66.7 2.05 21.7 1.71 11.6 1.46

United Kingdom 48.1 2.62 37.1 2.53 14.9 1.55

United States 42.9 3.01 37.8 2.70 19.3 1.94

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 40.3 1.63 38.6 1.45 21.1 1.39

Latvia 56.0 2.69 32.7 2.19 11.3 1.42

Liechtenstein 70.7 6.36 21.2 5.93 8.2 3.65

Russian Federation 58.8 2.09 29.2 1.88 12.0 1.09

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for. 

NOTE: Students were asked how often they missed school in the 2 weeks prior to taking the assessment. For more 

information about the missing school variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A. Students were 

classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a 

particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students scoring 

407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of 

the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the 

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

OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population. s.e. 

means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or some data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

86

Table B-18. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of skipping 

classes and country: 2000

Country

Overall

Never skipped class

Skipped class

1 or 2 times

Skipped class

3 or more times

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 81.5 0.13 13.7 0.11 4.8 0.08

OECD countries

Australia 85.9 0.74 10.5 0.69 3.6 0.45

Austria 85.5 1.01 10.3 0.77 4.2 0.45

Belgium 91.4 0.50 6.2 0.40 2.4 0.19

Canada 76.4 0.52 17.5 0.38 6.0 0.26

Czech Republic 91.6 0.53 6.4 0.47 2.0 0.23

Denmark 76.6 0.84 16.7 0.66 6.7 0.53

Finland 80.8 0.81 14.4 0.62 4.7 0.38

France 90.5 0.56 7.4 0.45 2.2 0.24

Germany 87.6 0.70 9.4 0.64 3.0 0.28

Greece 58.0 1.36 30.5 0.93 11.5 0.67

Hungary 84.0 0.84 13.2 0.67 2.8 0.35

Iceland 81.5 0.65 13.3 0.60 5.2 0.45

Ireland 88.0 0.75 8.9 0.56 3.1 0.35

Italy 89.4 0.59 8.1 0.47 2.5 0.27

Japan 95.8 0.61 3.0 0.37 1.3 0.33

Korea, Republic of 95.2 0.43 3.6 0.29 1.2 0.22

Luxembourg 91.7 0.46 5.3 0.39 3.0 0.31

Mexico 67.5 1.21 27.0 1.12 5.6 0.46

New Zealand 74.4 0.89 17.5 0.71 8.1 0.51

Norway 86.3 0.82 9.1 0.65 4.6 0.36

Poland 74.0 1.25 19.0 0.92 7.0 0.63

Portugal 61.1 0.83 31.3 0.85 7.6 0.49

Spain 51.2 1.11 34.6 0.83 14.2 0.70

Sweden 78.6 0.86 15.3 0.69 6.1 0.43

Switzerland 86.9 0.63 9.8 0.47 3.4 0.32

United Kingdom 90.2 0.45 7.5 0.37 2.2 0.24

United States 80.7 1.07 14.0 0.66 5.3 0.67

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 77.4 1.38 17.5 1.05 5.1 0.52

Latvia 64.5 1.22 26.6 1.03 8.9 0.64

Liechtenstein 92.4 1.64 5.3 1.39 2.4 0.90

Russian Federation 62.5 1.17 26.8 0.85 10.7 0.53

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

87

Table B-18. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 

or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of skipping 

classes and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Level 1 or below

Never skipped class

Skipped class

1 or 2 times

Skipped class

3 or more times

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 73.1 0.47 17.8 0.36 9.1 0.30

OECD countries

Australia 80.0 2.46 13.8 2.06 6.2 1.58

Austria 86.0 2.09 7.6 1.36 6.4 1.53

Belgium 79.5 1.53 13.9 1.11 6.7 0.76

Canada 65.7 1.55 21.6 1.23 12.7 0.95

Czech Republic1 85.7 1.86 9.6 1.48 4.7 0.99

Denmark 66.1 2.42 19.6 1.66 14.4 1.75

Finland 68.4 3.81 19.2 2.50 12.5 2.42

France 84.2 1.73 10.0 1.51 5.8 1.04

Germany1 81.1 2.46 13.6 2.25 5.3 0.87

Greece 52.6 2.49 30.9 1.73 16.6 1.54

Hungary 73.4 2.24 19.5 1.84 7.1 1.19

Iceland 67.7 2.17 18.7 1.81 13.6 1.91

Ireland 84.0 2.35 10.4 1.74 5.6 1.47

Italy 80.3 2.06 13.3 1.53 6.5 1.27

Japan 80.7 2.90 10.6 1.69 8.7 1.98

Korea, Republic of 85.3 2.46 9.4 1.83 5.4 1.62

Luxembourg 88.6 1.04 6.8 0.81 4.6 0.71

Mexico 67.5 1.54 25.8 1.44 6.7 0.85

New Zealand 61.7 2.65 22.9 1.96 15.4 1.96

Norway 76.5 1.98 12.0 1.34 11.5 1.44

Poland 64.4 2.43 23.1 1.81 12.5 1.42

Portugal 59.4 1.96 29.5 1.83 11.1 1.32

Spain 44.9 2.57 35.2 1.87 19.9 1.89

Sweden 71.8 2.26 18.4 2.01 9.8 1.53

Switzerland 85.4 1.59 9.8 1.32 4.9 0.72

United Kingdom 80.3 1.77 14.0 1.35 5.8 1.04

United States 73.0 2.52 17.4 1.92 9.6 1.63

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 74.0 1.77 19.1 1.39 6.9 0.66

Latvia 55.6 2.40 31.5 2.12 12.9 1.33

Liechtenstein 86.6 5.06 6.1 3.41 7.3 3.55

Russian Federation 54.5 2.22 31.1 1.56 14.4 1.17

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly 

accounted for.

NOTE: Students reported how often they skipped class in the 2 weeks prior to taking the assessment. For more 

information about the skipping class variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A. Students were 

classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a 

particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students scoring 

407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average of 

the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, the 

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

OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population. s.e. 

means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or some data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

88

Table B-19. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of receiving private 

tutoring outside of school and country: 2000 

Country

Overall

Never Sometimes Regularly

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 77.8 0.17 13.9 0.12 8.3 0.11

OECD countries

Australia 75.9 1.11 15.1 0.68 9.0 0.72

Austria — — — — — —

Belgium 87.6 0.47 8.8 0.34 3.6 0.27

Canada 79.4 0.50 14.5 0.41 6.1 0.27

Czech Republic 80.9 0.78 12.1 0.57 7.1 0.44

Denmark 95.7 0.34 3.0 0.30 1.3 0.23

Finland 96.4 0.37 2.3 0.26 1.3 0.19

France 79.9 0.82 12.6 0.58 7.5 0.48

Germany 73.0 0.88 17.5 0.63 9.6 0.54

Greece — — — — — —

Hungary 72.7 0.80 15.2 0.62 12.1 0.57

Iceland 83.3 0.65 10.6 0.51 6.2 0.44

Ireland 67.5 1.16 18.5 0.79 13.9 0.71

Italy 64.8 0.89 27.4 0.77 7.8 0.55

Japan 82.7 0.85 5.6 0.38 11.7 0.66

Korea, Republic of 67.6 1.02 21.2 0.71 11.3 0.69

Luxembourg 91.9 0.42 6.0 0.39 2.1 0.25

Mexico 78.2 0.73 17.7 0.58 4.1 0.34

New Zealand 71.2 0.82 16.4 0.65 12.4 0.64

Norway — — — — — —

Poland 57.1 1.24 26.7 0.86 16.2 0.96

Portugal 60.1 1.12 25.8 0.81 14.1 0.81

Spain 55.2 0.85 22.5 0.65 22.3 0.75

Sweden 95.0 0.43 3.6 0.31 1.4 0.22

Switzerland 83.0 0.83 10.6 0.57 6.4 0.51

United Kingdom 84.3 0.69 7.8 0.44 7.9 0.43

United States 84.5 0.88 12.2 0.64 3.3 0.43

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 77.6 1.04 17.2 1.05 5.2 0.55

Latvia 63.8 1.08 25.5 0.84 10.7 0.72

Liechtenstein 83.2 2.28 11.8 1.98 4.9 1.28

Russian Federation 79.5 0.73 12.2 0.51 8.3 0.47

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

89

Table B-19. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of receiving private 

tutoring outside of school and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Level 1 or below

Never Sometimes Regularly

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 76.6 0.40 15.9 0.32 7.5 0.25

OECD countries

Australia 75.2 2.74 16.7 2.25 8.1 1.65

Austria — — — — — —

Belgium 86.9 1.14 9.6 0.92 3.5 0.72

Canada 73.6 1.29 19.4 1.11 7.0 0.80

Czech Republic1 83.4 1.59 12.8 1.54 3.9 0.84

Denmark 92.2 1.22 5.7 0.96 2.1 0.73

Finland 94.2 1.63 4.5 1.28 1.3 0.79

France 81.4 1.64 13.0 1.30 5.6 0.95

Germany1 78.3 1.57 13.6 1.10 8.1 1.38

Greece — — — — — —

Hungary 75.9 1.97 15.7 1.72 8.4 1.19

Iceland 73.0 2.42 18.6 2.23 8.4 1.67

Ireland 77.0 2.80 13.3 2.19 9.7 1.79

Italy 68.2 2.09 23.1 1.96 8.7 1.25

Japan 75.0 2.76 7.8 1.48 17.2 2.28

Korea, Republic of 72.6 3.76 19.8 3.43 7.6 1.96

Luxembourg 87.2 0.98 9.2 0.95 3.5 0.72

Mexico 75.4 1.47 19.7 1.12 4.9 0.66

New Zealand 67.8 2.80 22.6 2.42 9.6 1.54

Norway — — — — — —

Poland 66.8 2.14 22.0 1.73 11.2 1.63

Portugal 60.4 2.11 27.3 1.47 12.3 1.53

Spain 46.8 2.26 29.7 2.64 23.5 1.90

Sweden 90.1 1.79 8.1 1.34 1.8 0.99

Switzerland 84.9 1.39 8.4 0.98 6.7 0.95

United Kingdom 84.3 1.81 11.0 1.62 4.7 1.10

United States 80.1 2.04 15.2 1.53 4.7 1.10

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 79.4 1.24 15.9 1.16 4.7 0.64

Latvia 68.9 1.91 22.7 1.71 8.4 1.19

Liechtenstein 83.0 5.75 7.5 3.64 9.5 4.17

Russian Federation 80.9 1.02 11.6 0.90 7.4 0.77

—Not available.

1The item response rate for students at level 1 or below for this category is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been 

explicitly accounted for. 

NOTE: Students were asked how often they received private tutoring outside of school in the 3 years prior to taking the 

assessment. For more information about the private tutoring variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix 

A. Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. In order 

to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students 

scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The OECD average is the average 

of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is principally an OECD study, 

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

OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population. s.e 

means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or some data not reported, or both.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

90

Table B-20. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at 

level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of 

remedial course attendance in the test language outside of school and 

country: 2000

Country

Overall

Never Sometimes Regularly

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 92.6 0.11 5.6 0.09 1.8 0.06

OECD countries

Australia 94.4 0.38 4.1 0.32 1.5 0.21

Austria 94.2 0.45 4.7 0.41 1.0 0.13

Belgium1 97.9 0.37 1.7 0.32 0.4 0.13

Canada 94.4 0.26 4.9 0.22 0.8 0.08

Czech Republic — — — — — —

Denmark 93.5 0.51 4.7 0.41 1.8 0.23

Finland 98.6 0.20 1.2 0.18 0.1 0.07

France 89.6 0.55 8.1 0.50 2.3 0.22

Germany 95.3 0.40 3.2 0.29 1.4 0.19

Greece — — — — — —

Hungary 88.5 0.58 8.9 0.51 2.6 0.28

Iceland 91.9 0.50 6.4 0.47 1.8 0.23

Ireland 97.7 0.32 1.5 0.27 0.8 0.15

Italy 91.4 0.53 7.3 0.53 1.3 0.16

Japan — — — — — —

Korea, Republic of 82.6 0.70 11.8 0.59 5.6 0.41

Luxembourg 91.1 0.55 6.5 0.49 2.4 0.27

Mexico 88.2 0.85 10.6 0.77 1.2 0.21

New Zealand 90.0 0.62 7.2 0.51 2.8 0.30

Norway 96.3 0.26 2.4 0.28 1.3 0.22

Poland 84.8 0.71 11.9 0.65 3.3 0.33

Portugal — — — — — —

Spain 91.1 0.54 5.4 0.37 3.5 0.31

Sweden 98.6 0.21 1.1 0.17 0.4 0.10

Switzerland 93.5 0.51 4.1 0.39 2.4 0.26

United Kingdom — — — — — —

United States 94.6 0.62 4.5 0.51 0.9 0.18

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 82.7 0.83 15.3 0.75 2.0 0.30

Latvia 84.4 0.93 13.7 0.86 1.9 0.24

Liechtenstein 94.7 1.25 3.6 1.10 1.7 0.77

Russian Federation — — — — — —

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

91

Table B-20. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students overall and scoring at 

level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by frequency of 

remedial course attendance in the test language outside of school and 

country: 2000—Continued

Country

Level 1 or below

Never Sometimes Regularly

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 82.5 0.37 13.4 0.29 4.2 0.22

OECD countries

Australia 80.6 2.75 12.6 2.24 6.8 1.48

Austria 85.8 1.51 11.7 1.38 2.5 0.75

Belgium2 ‡ † ‡ † ‡ †

Canada 81.5 1.37 15.4 1.20 3.1 0.49

Czech Republic — — — — — —

Denmark 79.9 2.03 14.5 1.70 5.7 0.97

Finland 93.2 1.73 6.1 1.48 ‡ †

France 77.7 2.05 16.8 1.94 5.5 0.97

Germany3 90.1 1.20 7.2 0.93 2.7 0.65

Greece — — — — — —

Hungary 76.9 1.66 17.9 1.56 5.2 1.00

Iceland 79.7 2.13 16.6 1.77 3.7 1.27

Ireland 89.5 1.96 6.4 1.67 4.1 1.02

Italy 78.8 1.57 17.4 1.47 3.8 0.70

Japan — — — — — —

Korea, Republic of 83.3 3.02 11.8 2.61 4.9 1.57

Luxembourg 83.6 1.30 11.9 1.11 4.4 0.69

Mexico 81.1 1.29 16.6 1.18 2.4 0.41

New Zealand 72.8 2.60 20.5 2.49 6.7 1.20

Norway 85.1 1.58 8.7 1.45 6.3 1.17

Poland 80.7 1.60 15.1 1.52 4.1 0.83

Portugal — — — — — —

Spain 80.4 1.93 13.3 1.50 6.3 0.98

Sweden 92.1 1.29 5.8 1.11 2.1 0.71

Switzerland 83.7 1.57 10.7 1.28 5.6 0.87

United Kingdom — — — — — —

United States 83.5 1.81 13.5 1.58 3.0 0.68

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 77.5 1.30 19.9 1.23 2.6 0.45

Latvia 74.0 2.06 23.3 1.89 2.8 0.62

Liechtenstein 79.8 5.14 13.6 4.72 6.6 3.24

Russian Federation — — — — — —

—Not available.

†Not applicable.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1The item response rate for students overall is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly accounted for.

2The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 50 percent.

3The item response rate for students at level 1 or below is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly accounted for.

NOTE: Students were asked how often they attended remedial courses outside of school in the 3 years prior to taking the 

assessment. For information about the variable remedial courses in the test language outside of school, see the Description 

of Variables section in appendix A. Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy 

scores on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of 

items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. The 

OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA is 

principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD countries and 

are not included in the OECD average. The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student 

population. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or some data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment 

(PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

92

Table B-21. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students’ career expectations, by 

selected job categories and country: 2000

Country Armed forces Clerks

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average # # 3.3 0.07

OECD countries

Australia # † 1.4 0.26

Austria 1.0 0.04 8.9 0.61

Belgium1 # † 4.5 0.48

Canada ‡ † 0.8 0.07

Czech Republic # † 5.8 0.67

Denmark2 ‡ † ‡ †

Finland1 # † 1.9 0.20

France ‡ † 2.3 0.32

Germany1 0.1 0.04 8.1 0.57

Greece # † 0.9 0.17

Hungary # † 2.8 0.48

Iceland # † 0.6 0.13

Ireland ‡ † 1.7 0.23

Italy ‡ † 7.1 0.83

Japan1 0.7 0.18 3.5 0.73

Korea, Republic of # † 4.9 0.40

Luxembourg1 1.1 0.18 4.8 0.41

Mexico # † 2.1 0.38

New Zealand # † 1.6 0.23

Norway # † 1.5 0.27

Poland1 # † 2.1 0.53

Portugal ‡ † 2.8 0.25

Spain 0.1 0.04 3.3 0.32

Sweden # † 0.7 0.12

Switzerland 1.2 0.19 7.3 0.47

United Kingdom # † 4.2 0.30

United States1 # † # †

Non-OECD countries

Brazil # † 4.9 0.46

Latvia # † 2.9 0.43

Liechtenstein 1.1 0.65 10.6 1.75

Russian Federation # † 0.6 0.11

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

93

Table B-21. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students’ career expectations, by 

selected job categories and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Craft and related 

trade workers

Elementary 

occupations3

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 8.8 0.15 13.1 0.13

OECD countries

Australia 9.3 0.77 12.4 0.58

Austria 11.1 1.02 15.2 0.78

Belgium1 14.5 1.43 3.2 0.36

Canada 6.1 0.24 11.0 0.28

Czech Republic 15.0 1.03 15.9 0.67

Denmark2 ‡ † ‡ †

Finland1 10.4 0.58 8.8 0.46

France 8.1 0.59 25.8 1.00

Germany1 16.0 1.21 12.7 0.56

Greece 9.2 0.92 5.9 0.51

Hungary 14.8 1.11 10.1 0.53

Iceland 6.3 0.38 20.0 0.71

Ireland 10.3 0.73 11.5 0.52

Italy 4.3 0.80 9.1 0.57

Japan1 3.6 0.64 36.5 1.20

Korea, Republic of 1.2 0.18 13.6 0.55

Luxembourg1 6.7 0.46 16.7 0.66

Mexico 2.0 0.28 7.9 0.53

New Zealand 6.5 0.69 8.6 0.54

Norway 12.5 0.58 15.7 0.66

Poland1 13.9 1.67 ‡ †

Portugal 4.8 0.45 7.7 0.57

Spain 7.6 0.54 12.6 0.49

Sweden 7.1 0.45 16.4 0.64

Switzerland 12.7 0.80 22.6 0.91

United Kingdom 7.4 0.49 18.5 0.92

United States1 4.5 0.43 5.5 0.48

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 2.2 0.31 0.1 0.06

Latvia 12.4 1.21 2.6 0.32

Liechtenstein 13.5 1.82 31.2 3.16

Russian Federation 9.9 0.69 16.7 0.78

See notes at end of table.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

94

Table B-21. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students’ career expectations, by 

selected job categories and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Legislators, senior 

officials, and managers

Plant and machine operators 

and assemblers

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 4.9 0.08 0.9 0.04

OECD countries

Australia 6.5 0.45 # †

Austria 7.8 0.66 0.7 0.16

Belgium1 4.9 0.53 1.7 0.29

Canada 4.0 0.16 0.7 0.07

Czech Republic 6.4 0.49 1.4 0.20

Denmark2 ‡ † ‡ †

Finland1 5.7 0.38 2.8 0.29

France 2.3 0.25 0.7 0.23

Germany1 2.5 0.34 0.6 0.12

Greece 11.0 0.71 0.8 0.12

Hungary 5.8 0.48 1.7 0.25

Iceland 2.2 0.30 # †

Ireland 6.2 0.43 0.6 0.15

Italy 7.0 0.41 0.8 0.24

Japan1 0.6 0.12 0.9 0.14

Korea, Republic of 9.2 0.71 # †

Luxembourg1 1.3 0.16 0.8 0.18

Mexico 1.5 0.21 # †

New Zealand 6.6 0.48 0.8 0.15

Norway 3.8 0.35 1.4 0.20

Poland1 5.1 0.55 1.6 0.30

Portugal 6.0 0.47 1.3 0.21

Spain 3.9 0.31 # †

Sweden 4.3 0.31 2.1 0.22

Switzerland 1.7 0.28 0.6 0.12

United Kingdom 5.0 0.29 0.6 0.13

United States1 4.1 0.45 0.7 0.22

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 10.7 0.71 2.2 0.34

Latvia 8.8 0.57 2.9 0.38

Liechtenstein 1.5 0.76 1.1 0.38

Russian Federation 7.2 0.40 6.8 0.50

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

95

Table B-21. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students’ career expectations, by 

selected job categories and country: 2000—Continued

Country Professionals

Service workers, shop, 

and market sales workers

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 40.8 0.21 10.5 0.13

OECD countries

Australia 41.5 1.05 10.4 0.52

Austria 27.9 1.06 8.3 0.72

Belgium1 51.5 1.34 9.7 0.75

Canada 50.8 0.53 9.4 0.27

Czech Republic 23.7 1.06 16.2 1.00

Denmark2 ‡ † ‡ †

Finland1 40.3 1.00 13.9 0.61

France 29.5 0.92 12.4 0.75

Germany1 22.9 0.81 12.7 0.61

Greece 48.4 1.22 10.7 0.58

Hungary 32.1 1.37 16.2 1.48

Iceland 43.5 0.96 12.0 0.59

Ireland 44.7 1.03 10.4 0.56

Italy 37.5 1.34 8.1 0.66

Japan1 35.9 1.30 9.4 0.70

Korea, Republic of 49.9 1.07 8.4 0.56

Luxembourg1 30.9 0.90 9.5 0.57

Mexico 72.9 1.17 1.6 0.25

New Zealand 41.5 1.05 13.5 0.64

Norway 37.4 0.99 11.2 0.61

Poland1 45.2 1.80 13.3 1.54

Portugal 55.6 1.25 6.7 0.49

Spain 45.3 1.06 8.9 0.53

Sweden 34.0 0.77 9.5 0.51

Switzerland 24.4 1.10 9.1 0.55

United Kingdom 35.5 0.92 12.1 0.59

United States1 58.6 1.34 7.8 0.53

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 62.1 1.06 3.0 0.30

Latvia 40.7 1.87 15.2 1.05

Liechtenstein 18.1 2.01 6.5 1.66

Russian Federation 40.2 1.11 6.4 0.51

See notes at end of table.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

96

Table B-21. Percentage distributions of 15-year-old students’ career expectations, by 

selected job categories and country: 2000—Continued

Country

Skilled agricultural 

and fishery workers

Technicians and 

associate professionals

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

OECD average 1.0 0.04 16.5 0.16

OECD countries

Australia 1.1 0.19 17.0 0.58

Austria 0.6 0.15 19.5 0.96

Belgium1 0.8 0.14 8.7 0.43

Canada 1.0 0.09 16.1 0.27

Czech Republic 1.2 0.31 14.4 0.98

Denmark2 ‡ † ‡ †

Finland1 1.8 0.29 14.5 0.52

France 1.8 0.32 17.1 0.61

Germany1 1.1 0.22 23.3 0.90

Greece 0.3 0.09 13.0 0.58

Hungary 1.9 0.44 14.8 0.77

Iceland 1.6 0.24 13.2 0.68

Ireland 1.4 0.20 13.1 0.65

Italy 1.4 0.54 24.6 1.69

Japan1 0.4 0.12 8.5 0.63

Korea, Republic of 0.4 0.14 12.2 0.78

Luxembourg1 1.9 0.25 26.3 0.93

Mexico 0.1 0.06 11.7 0.73

New Zealand 2.0 0.27 19.0 0.73

Norway 0.4 0.10 16.1 0.79

Poland1 # † 18.5 1.86

Portugal # † 14.8 0.56

Spain 0.6 0.10 17.3 0.67

Sweden 1.0 0.14 25.0 0.70

Switzerland 2.4 0.31 17.9 0.70

United Kingdom # † 16.6 0.66

United States1 0.6 0.17 17.6 0.96

Non-OECD countries

Brazil # † 14.6 0.67

Latvia 1.0 0.20 13.7 0.73

Liechtenstein ‡ † 15.6 2.41

Russian Federation 1.0 0.27 10.9 0.80

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

‡Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1The item response rate is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly accounted for.

2The item response rate is below 50 percent.

3Elementary occupations consist mainly of simple and routine tasks that mainly require the use of hand-held tools and 

often some physical effort. Most occupations in this major group require skills at the first ISCO skill level (a primary 

education, which generally begins at the age of 5, 6, or 7 and lasts about 5 years) (ILO 1990). For more information 

about the job expectations variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A.

NOTE: For information about the job expectations variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A. The 

OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries with data available. Because PISA 

is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries are displayed separately from those of the OECD 

countries and are not included in the OECD average. s.e. means standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of 

rounding or some data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

97

Table B-22. Percentage distributions of U.S. 15-year-old students overall and scoring 

at level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale, by selected job 

expectations: 2000

Job expectation

Overall Level 1 or below

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Armed forces1 # † # †

Clerks1 0.4 0.08 0.9 0.38

Craft and related trade workers1 4.5 0.43 10.7 2.06

Elementary occupations1,2 5.5 0.48 8.6 1.74

Legislators, senior officials, and managers1 4.1 0.45 3.2 2.91

Plant and machine operators and assemblers1 0.7 0.22 2.3 1.15

Professionals1 58.6 1.34 38.4 2.91

Service workers, shop, and market sales workers1 7.8 0.53 14.1 2.28

Skilled agricultural and fishery workers1 0.6 0.17 1.1 0.60

Technicians and associate professionals1 17.6 0.96 20.8 2.57

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

1Item response rates for students overall and for students at level 1 or below are below 85 percent. Missing data have 

not been explicitly accounted for.

2Elementary occupations consist mainly of simple and routine tasks that mainly require the use of hand-held tools and 

often some physical effort. Most occupations in this major group require skills at the first ISCO skill level (a primary 

education, which generally begins at the age of 5, 6, or 7 and lasts about 5 years) (ILO 1990). For more information 

about the job expectations variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A.

NOTE: For information about the how the job expectations variable was created, see the Description of Variables 

section in appendix A. Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores 

on PISA 2000. In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of 

items at that level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. 

The overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population. s.e. means 

standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or some data not reported, or both. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

98

Table B-23. Relative likelihood ratios for selected student characteristics of 15-year-old 

students scoring at level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale 

compared to the overall 15-year-old student population, by country: 2000

Country Male Low SES

Both parents

foreign born

Ratio s.e. Ratio s.e. Ratio s.e.

OECD average 1.2 0.01 1.5 0.01 2.0 0.02

OECD countries

Australia 1.3 0.01 1.7 0.04 1.2 0.04

Austria 1.2 # 1.6 0.05 2.8 0.02

Belgium 1.2 0.02 1.6 0.04 2.7 0.06

Canada 1.4 0.01 1.6 0.03 1.3 0.05

Czech Republic 1.4 # 1.5 0.05 1.9 0.23

Denmark 1.2 0.02 1.6 0.04 2.6 0.09

Finland 1.6 0.05 1.4 0.11 4.3 0.37

France 1.3 0.02 1.5 0.03 1.9 0.01

Germany 1.2 0.01 1.7 0.04 2.3 0.04

Greece 1.3 0.02 1.4 0.05 2.0 0.10

Hungary 1.2 0.01 1.5 0.05 1.0 0.20

Iceland 1.4 0.02 1.4 0.05 2.6 0.32

Ireland 1.2 0.03 1.5 0.04 0.6 0.21

Italy 1.3 0.02 1.3 0.04 1.9 0.32

Japan 1.4 0.02 1.2 0.16 — —

Korea, Republic of 1.3 0.01 1.5 0.01 — —

Luxembourg 1.2 0.01 1.3 0.02 1.7 0.01

Mexico 1.1 # 1.3 0.01 1.9 0.02

New Zealand 1.4 0.01 1.7 0.06 1.5 0.08

Norway 1.4 0.02 1.6 0.02 2.0 0.06

Poland 1.3 # 1.4 0.03 3.1 0.38

Portugal 1.2 0.02 1.5 0.01 1.2 0.16

Spain 1.3 0.02 1.4 0.03 1.8 0.22

Sweden 1.4 0.03 1.5 0.04 2.2 0.04

Switzerland 1.2 0.02 1.6 0.02 2.2 0.01

United Kingdom 1.2 0.02 1.8 0.02 1.7 0.13

United States 1.3 0.02 1.7 0.01 1.6 0.01

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 1.1 # 1.1 # 1.5 0.03

Latvia 1.4 0.01 1.2 0.03 1.0 #

Liechtenstein 1.3 0.07 1.6 0.01 1.9 0.16

Russian Federation 1.3 0.00 1.3 0.02 1.1 0.03

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

99

Table B-23. Relative likelihood ratios for selected student characteristics of 15-year-old students 

scoring at level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale compared to the 

overall 15-year-old student population, by country: 2000—Continued

Country Foreign born Non-test-language

Non-collegeeducated parents

Ratio s.e. Ratio s.e. Ratio s.e.

OECD average 1.9 0.02 2.0 0.02 1.2 #

OECD countries

Australia 1.4 0.08 1.4 0.05 1.3 0.02

Austria 2.8 0.05 3.0 0.02 1.2 0.02

Belgium 1.9 0.11 1.2 0.05 1.1 0.03

Canada 1.7 0.07 1.8 0.05 1.5 0.02

Czech Republic 1.6 0.28 2.3 0.57 1.2 #

Denmark 2.0 0.10 2.5 0.01 1.5 0.02

Finland 2.5 0.29 2.3 0.31 1.1 0.04

France 2.2 0.13 2.5 0.08 1.1 0.02

Germany 2.3 0.11 2.8 0.15 1.2 0.03

Greece 1.8 0.12 2.3 0.24 1.2 0.01

Hungary 1.0 0.17 — — 1.2 #

Iceland 1.3 0.13 2.4 0.18 1.1 0.02

Ireland 0.6 0.17 1.2 0.21 1.1 0.03

Italy 1.7 0.18 1.9 0.03 1.1 0.01

Japan — — — — — —

Korea, Republic of — — — — 1.1 0.02

Luxembourg 1.8 0.02 1.8 0.01 1.2 0.01

Mexico 1.8 0.02 1.8 0.07 1.1 0.01

New Zealand 1.4 0.09 2.5 0.12 1.2 0.04

Norway 1.8 0.07 2.2 0.07 1.1 0.03

Poland 2.2 0.32 2.2 0.19 1.2 #

Portugal 1.1 0.06 1.7 0.12 1.1 #

Spain 13.5 1.64 1.0 0.01 1.2 #

Sweden 2.2 0.16 2.5 0.12 1.1 0.03

Switzerland 0.3 0.08 2.2 # 1.2 0.01

United Kingdom 1.8 0.09 2.3 0.24 1.2 0.02

United States 1.7 0.05 2.2 0.02 1.3 #

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 1.0 0.16 1.1 0.08 1.1 #

Latvia 1.0 0.01 1.3 0.05 1.1 0.01

Liechtenstein 2.4 0.19 1.7 0.12 1.2 0.03

Russian Federation 0.9 0.05 1.4 0.01 1.1 #

See notes at end of table.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

100

Table B-23. Relative likelihood ratios for selected student characteristics of 15-year-old students 

scoring at level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale compared to the 

overall 15-year-old student population, by country: 2000—Continued

Country Low engagement 

in reading

Low sense of 

belonging in school

Low effort and 

perseverance in 

schoolwork

Ratio s.e. Ratio s.e. Ratio s.e.

OECD average 1.7 0.01 1.4 0.01 1.2 0.01

OECD countries

Australia 1.9 0.03 1.4 0.06 1.4 0.06

Austria 1.7 0.02 1.4 0.07 1.0 0.04

Belgium 1.4 0.04 1.3 0.03 1.2 0.09

Canada 1.9 0.03 1.5 0.04 — —

Czech Republic 2.1 0.02 1.4 0.03 1.2 0.03

Denmark 2.1 0.03 1.3 0.05 1.3 0.03

Finland 2.9 0.22 1.2 0.09 1.5 0.08

France 1.6 0.03 1.3 0.04 — —

Germany 1.6 0.01 1.4 0.05 1.3 0.05

Greece 1.5 0.02 1.4 0.04 — —

Hungary 1.9 0.02 1.5 0.05 1.4 0.06

Iceland 2.5 0.07 1.3 0.05 1.4 0.07

Ireland 1.7 0.05 1.3 0.09 1.1 0.06

Italy 1.5 0.02 1.3 0.04 1.1 0.04

Japan 1.8 0.07 1.3 0.06 — —

Korea, Republic of 2.5 0.07 1.3 0.07 1.4 0.05

Luxembourg 1.3 0.02 1.4 0.02 1.2 0.02

Mexico 1.3 0.02 1.4 0.01 1.2 0.02

New Zealand 1.8 0.07 1.6 0.05 1.4 0.04

Norway 2.0 0.06 1.5 0.04 1.5 0.03

Poland 1.5 0.01 1.4 0.01 — —

Portugal 1.6 0.03 1.9 0.01 1.3 0.02

Spain 1.7 0.01 1.4 0.05 — —

Sweden 2.0 0.05 1.2 0.07 1.3 0.06

Switzerland 1.8 0.01 1.4 0.05 1.1 0.04

United Kingdom 1.7 0.05 1.5 0.08 1.3 0.06

United States 1.6 0.03 1.7 0.05 1.3 0.04

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 1.3 0.01 1.1 0.01 1.3 0.01

Latvia 1.6 0.02 1.2 0.01 1.1 0.02

Liechtenstein 1.8 0.06 1.5 0.11 1.6 0.08

Russian Federation 1.4 0.05 1.2 0.01 1.3 0.02

See notes at end of table.
Findings From PISA 2000

101

Table B-23. Relative likelihood ratios for selected student characteristics of 15-year-old students 

scoring at level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale compared to the 

overall 15-year-old student population, by country: 2000—Continued

Country Miss school

frequently

Skip class 

frequently

Ratio s.e. Ratio s.e.

OECD average 1.8 0.02 1.9 0.03

OECD countries

Australia 1.4 0.14 1.7 0.22

Austria 1.6 0.17 1.5 0.20

Belgium 2.6 0.08 2.8 0.10

Canada 2.0 0.08 2.1 0.07

Czech Republic 2.1 0.04 2.3 0.22

Denmark 1.5 0.06 2.2 0.09

Finland 1.9 0.15 2.6 0.30

France 2.5 0.13 2.6 0.19

Germany 2.2 0.13 1.8 0.13

Greece 2.0 0.05 1.4 0.05

Hungary 1.7 0.07 2.5 0.11

Iceland 1.6 0.06 2.6 0.14

Ireland 1.9 0.12 1.8 0.27

Italy 2.1 0.06 2.6 0.23

Japan 4.1 0.31 6.9 0.22

Korea, Republic of 2.3 0.15 4.6 0.52

Luxembourg 1.6 0.05 1.5 0.08

Mexico 1.2 0.06 1.2 0.05

New Zealand 2.3 0.10 1.9 0.12

Norway 1.7 0.06 2.5 0.12

Poland 1.7 0.02 1.8 0.04

Portugal 1.9 0.09 1.5 0.08

Spain 2.1 0.07 1.4 0.06

Sweden 1.4 0.11 1.6 0.14

Switzerland 1.7 0.10 1.4 0.08

United Kingdom 2.2 0.09 2.6 0.19

United States 2.4 0.09 1.8 0.08

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 1.2 0.01 1.3 0.01

Latvia 1.3 0.04 1.4 0.05

Liechtenstein 1.7 0.30 3.1 0.32

Russian Federation 1.3 0.06 1.3 0.04

See notes at end of table.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

102

Table B-23. Relative likelihood ratios for selected student characteristics of 15-year-old students 

scoring at level 1 or below on the combined reading literacy scale compared to the 

overall 15-year-old student population, by country: 2000—Continued

Country

Attend private 

tutoring outside of 

school regularly

Attend remedial classes 

in the test language 

outside of school regularly

Ratio s.e. Ratio s.e.

OECD average 0.9 0.02 2.3 0.05

OECD countries

Australia 0.9 0.11 4.6 0.35

Austria — — 2.4 0.43

Belgium 1.0 0.13 6.7 0.36

Canada 1.1 0.08 4.0 0.24

Czech Republic 0.5 0.08 — —

Denmark 1.6 0.28 3.1 0.14

Finland 0.9 0.45 — —

France 0.7 0.08 2.4 0.20

Germany 0.8 0.10 1.9 0.20

Greece — — — —

Hungary 0.7 0.07 2.0 0.17

Iceland 1.4 0.17 2.1 0.45

Ireland 0.7 0.09 5.0 0.32

Italy 1.1 0.08 2.9 0.19

Japan 1.5 0.11 — —

Korea, Republic of 0.7 0.13 0.9 0.22

Luxembourg 1.7 0.15 1.8 0.08

Mexico 1.2 0.06 2.0 #

New Zealand 0.8 0.08 2.4 0.18

Norway — — 4.7 0.11

Poland 0.7 0.06 1.3 0.12

Portugal 0.9 0.06 — —

Spain 1.1 0.05 1.8 0.12

Sweden 1.3 0.52 6.0 0.30

Switzerland 1.0 0.07 2.3 0.11

United Kingdom 0.6 0.11 — —

United States 1.4 0.15 3.4 0.08

Non-OECD countries

Brazil 0.9 0.03 1.3 0.03

Latvia 0.8 0.06 1.5 0.14

Liechtenstein 1.9 0.34 3.8 0.17

Russian Federation 0.9 0.04 — —

—Not available.

#Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. 

In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that 

level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. For more 

information about the selected characteristic variables, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A. The 

overall percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population in the United States. s.e. 

means standard error. Relative likelihood (risk) ratio is calculated across two groups: 1) low-performing students (scoring 

at level 1 or below) and 2) the overall 15-year-old student population (scoring at all proficiency levels: below level 1, 

level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, and level 5). A relative likelihood ratio greater than 1 implies that a particular characteristic 

is more likely to be observed among the low performers than for the overall 15-year-old-student population. A relative 

likelihood ratio less than 1 implies that a particular characteristic is less likely to be observed among the low performers 

than for the overall 15-year-old-student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Questionnaire, 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

103

Table B-24. Relative likelihood ratios of U.S. 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading literacy scale compared to the overall U.S.

15-year-old student population, by race/ethnicity: 2000

Race/ethnicity Ratio s.e.

White, non-Hispanic 0.5 0.04

Black, non-Hispanic 2.0 0.03

Hispanic 2.0 0.07

Other 1.0 0.10

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. 

In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that 

level. Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. For more 

information about the race/ethnicity variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A. The “other” 

group comprises students identifying themselves as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander, or multiracial since the numbers of these students are too small to report by individual categories. The overall 

percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population in the United States. s.e. means 

standard error. Relative likelihood (risk) ratio is calculated across two groups: 1) low-performing students (scoring at 

level 1 or below) and 2) the overall 15-year-old student population (scoring at all proficiency levels: below level 1, level 

1, level 2, level 3, level 4, and level 5). A relative likelihood ratio greater than 1 implies that a particular characteristic 

is more likely to be observed among the low performers than for the overall 15-year-old-student population. A 

relative likelihood ratio less than 1 implies that a particular characteristic is less likely to be observed among the low 

performers than for the overall 15-year-old-student population.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

104

Table B-25. Relative likelihood ratios of U.S. 15-year-old students scoring at level 1 or 

below on the combined reading literacy scale compared to the overall U.S. 15-

year-old student population, by selected job expectations: 2000

Job expectation Ratio s.e.

Clerks1 2.3 0.51

Craft and related trade workers1 2.4 0.23

Elementary occupations1,2 1.5 0.18

Legislators, senior officials, and managers1 0.8 0.62

Plant and machine operators and assemblers1 3.4 0.62

Professionals1 0.7 0.03

Service workers, shop, and market sales workers1 1.8 0.17

Technicians and associate professionals1 1.2 0.08

1Item response rates for students overall and for students at level 1 or below are below 85 percent. Missing data have 

not been explicitly accounted for.

2Elementary occupations consist mainly of simple and routine tasks that mainly require the use of hand-held tools and 

often some physical effort. Most occupations in this major group require skills at the first ISCO skill level (a primary 

education, which generally begins at the age of 5, 6, or 7 and lasts about 5 years) (ILO 1990). For more information 

about the job expectations variable, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A.

NOTE: Students were classified into reading levels according to their combined reading literacy scores on PISA 2000. 

In order to reach a particular level, a student must have been able to correctly answer a majority of items at that level. 

Students scoring 407 or below on the combined reading scale were classified at level 1 or below. For information about 

the how the job expectations variable was created, see the Description of Variables section in appendix A. The overall 

percentage refers to the sample estimate for the overall 15-year-old student population in the United States. s.e. means 

standard error. Relative likelihood (risk) ratio is calculated across two groups: 1) low-performing students (scoring at 

level 1 or below) and 2) the overall 15-year-old student population (scoring at all proficiency levels: below level 1, level 

1, level 2, level 3, level 4, and level 5). A relative likelihood ratio greater than 1 implies that a particular characteristic is 

more likely to be observed among the low performers than for the overall 15-year-old-student population. A relative 

likelihood ratio less than 1 implies that a particular characteristic is less likely to be observed among the low performers 

than for the overall 15-year-old-student population. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), Assessment Items and Student Questionnaire, 2000. 
Findings From PISA 2000

105
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

106

Appendix C:

Sample Items
Findings From PISA 2000

107

Sample Items

These PISA sample items illustrate a range 

of questions across the PISA reading literacy 

domain. Included are both multiple-choice and 

free-response item formats. For each sample 

item, information is provided on the level of the 

item and specific reading processes or aspects 

such as retrieving information, interpreting texts, 

and reflecting on texts. The items show actual 

student responses from level 1 or below and level 

5 students as well as the U.S. percent correct 

and the OECD average percent correct for level 1 

or below and level 5 students. For information 

on the percent correct for each of the 31 other 

PISA countries, see Knowledge and Skills for 

Life: First Results from the OECD Programme for 

International Student Assessment (OECD 2001).
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

108

The Gift

How many days, she wondered, had she sat like this, watching the cold brown water inch up the dissolving 

bluff. She could just faintly remember the beginning of the rain, driving in across the swamp from the 

south and beating against the shell of her house. Then the river itself started rising, slowly at first until 

at last it paused to turn back. From hour to hour it slithered up creeks and ditches and poured over low 

places. In the night, while she slept, it claimed the road and surrounded her so that she sat alone, her 

boat gone, the house like a piece of drift lodged on its bluff. Now even against the tarred planks of the 

supports the waters touched. And still they rose.

As far as she could see, to the treetops where the opposite banks had been, the swamp was an empty 

sea, awash with sheets of rain, the river lost somewhere in its vastness. Her house with its boat bottom 

had been built to ride just such a flood, if one ever came, but now it was old. Maybe the boards 

underneath were partly rotted away. Maybe the cable mooring the house to the great live oak would 

snap loose and let her go turning downstream, the way her boat had gone.

No one could come now. She could cry out but it would be no use, no one would hear. Down the length 

and breadth of the swamp others were fighting to save what little they could, maybe even their lives. She 

had seen a whole house go floating by, so quiet she was reminded of sitting at a funeral. She thought 

when she saw it she knew whose house it was. It had been bad seeing it drift by, but the owners must 

have escaped to higher ground. Later, with the rain and darkness pressing in, she had heard a panther 

scream upriver.

Now the house seemed to shudder around her like something alive. She reached out to catch a lamp as it 

tilted off the table by her bed and put it between her feet to hold it steady. Then creaking and groaning 

with effort the house struggled up from the clay, floated free, bobbing like a cork and swung out slowly 

with the pull of the river. She gripped the edge of the bed. Swaying from side to side, the house moved 

to the length of its mooring. There was a jolt and a complaining of old timbers and then a pause. Slowly 

the current released it and let it swing back, rasping across its resting place. She caught her breath and 

sat for a long time feeling the slow pendulous sweeps. The dark sifted down through the incessant rain, 

and, head on arm, she slept holding on to the bed.

Sometime in the night the cry awoke her, a sound so anguished she was on her feet before she was 

awake. In the dark she stumbled against the bed. It came from out there, from the river. She could hear 

something moving, something large that made a dredging, sweeping sound. It could be another house. 

Then it hit, not head on but glancing and sliding down the length of her house. It was a tree. She listened 

as the branches and leaves cleared themselves and went on downstream, leaving only the rain and the 

lappings of the flood, sounds so constant now that they seemed a part of the silence. Huddled on the 

bed, she was almost asleep again when another cry sounded, this time so close it could have been in the 

room. Staring into the dark, she eased back on the bed until her hand caught the cold shape of the rifle. 

Then crouched on the pillow, she cradled the gun across her knees. “Who’s there?” she called.

The answer was a repeated cry, but less shrill, tired sounding, then the empty silence closing in. She drew 

back against the bed. Whatever was there she could hear it moving about on the porch. Planks creaked 

and she could distinguish the sounds of objects being knocked over. There was a scratching on the wall 

as if it would tear its way in. She knew now what it was, a big cat, deposited by the uprooted tree that 

had passed her. It had come with the flood, a gift.

Unconsciously she pressed her hand against her face and along her tightened throat. The rifle rocked 

across her knees. She had never seen a panther in her life. She had heard about them from others and 

heard their cries, like suffering, in the distance. The cat was scratching on the wall again, rattling the 

window by the door. As long as she guarded the window and kept the cat hemmed in by the wall and 

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40
Findings From PISA 2000

109

water, caged, she would be all right. Outside, the animal paused to rake his claws across the rusted outer 

screen. Now and then, it whined and growled.

When the light filtered down through the rain at last, coming like another kind of dark, she was still sitting 

on the bed, stiff and cold. Her arms, used to rowing on the river, ached from the stillness of holding the 

rifle. She had hardly allowed herself to move for fear any sound might give strength to the cat. Rigid, she 

swayed with the movement of the house. The rain still fell as if it would never stop. Through the grey light, 

finally, she could see the rain-pitted flood and far away the cloudy shape of drowned treetops. The cat 

was not moving now. Maybe he had gone away. Laying the gun aside she slipped off the bed and moved 

without a sound to the window. It was still there, crouched at the edge of the porch, staring up at the live 

oak, the mooring of her house, as if gauging its chances of leaping to an overhanging branch. It did not 

seem so frightening now that she could see it, its coarse fur napped into twigs, its sides pinched and ribs 

showing. It would be easy to shoot it where it sat, its long tail whipping back and forth. She was moving 

back to get the gun when it turned around. With no warning, no crouch or tensing of muscles, it sprang 

at the window, shattering a pane of glass. She fell back, stifling a scream, and taking up the rifle, she fired 

through the window. She could not see the panther now, but she had missed. It began to pace again. She 

could glimpse its head and the arch of its back as it passed the window.

Shivering, she pulled back on the bed and lay down. The lulling constant sound of the river and the rain, 

the penetrating chill, drained away her purpose. She watched the window and kept the gun ready. After 

waiting a long while she moved again to look. The panther had fallen asleep, its head on its paws, like 

a housecat. For the first time since the rains began she wanted to cry, for herself, for all the people, for 

everything in the flood. Sliding down on the bed, she pulled the quilt around her shoulders. She should 

have got out when she could, while the roads were still open or before her boat was washed away. As 

she rocked back and forth with the sway of the house a deep ache in her stomach reminded her she 

hadn’t eaten. She couldn’t remember for how long. Like the cat, she was starving. Easing into the kitchen, 

she made a fire with the few remaining sticks of wood. If the flood lasted she would have to burn the 

chair, maybe even the table itself. Taking down the remains of a smoked ham from the ceiling, she cut 

thick slices of the brownish red meat and placed them in a skillet. The smell of the frying meat made her 

dizzy. There were stale biscuits from the last time she had cooked and she could make some coffee. 

There was plenty of water.

While she was cooking her food, she almost forgot about the cat until it whined. It was hungry too. “Let 

me eat,” she called to it, “and then I’ll see to you.” And she laughed under her breath. As she hung the 

rest of the ham back on its nail the cat growled a deep throaty rumble that made her hand shake.

After she had eaten, she went to the bed again and took up the rifle. The house had risen so high now 

it no longer scraped across the bluff when it swung back from the river. The food had warmed her. She 

could get rid of the cat while light still hung in the rain. She crept slowly to the window. It was still there, 

mewling, beginning to move about the porch. She stared at it a long time, unafraid. Then without thinking 

what she was doing, she laid the gun aside and started around the edge of the bed to the kitchen. Behind 

her the cat was moving, fretting. She took down what was left of the ham and making her way back 

across the swaying floor to the window she shoved it through the broken pane. On the other side there 

was a hungry snarl and something like a shock passed from the animal to her. Stunned by what she had 

done, she drew back to the bed. She could hear the sounds of the panther tearing at the meat. The 

house rocked around her.

The next time she awoke she knew at once that everything had changed. The rain had stopped. She felt 

for the movement of the house but it no longer swayed on the flood. Drawing her door open, she saw 

through the torn screen a different world. The house was resting on the bluff where it always had. A few 

feet down, the river still raced on in a torrent, but it no longer covered the few feet between the house 

and the live oak. And the cat was gone. Leading from the porch to the live oak and doubtless on into 

the swamp were tracks, indistinct and already disappearing into the soft mud. And there on the porch, 

gnawed to whiteness, was what was left of the ham.

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

45
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

110

Use the story “The Gift” to answer the questions which follow. (Note that line numbers are given in the 

margin of the story to help you find parts which are referred to in the questions.)

Released Question 35: The Gift

Aspect: Developing an interpretation

Level: 4

Text format: Continuous

Situation: Personal

When the woman says, “and then I’ll see to you” (line 75) she means that she is

0 out of 1 Point: No Credit Sample Response at Level 1 or below

A. sure that the cat won’t hurt her.

B. trying to frighten the cat.

C. intending to shoot the cat.

D. planning to feed the cat. 

1 Point: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 5

A. sure that the cat won’t hurt her.

B. trying to frighten the cat.

C. intending to shoot the cat.

D. planning to feed the cat.

Average percent correct

Level 1 or below Level 5

U.S. average 17 71

OECD average 20 76
Findings From PISA 2000

111

Released Question 32: The Gift

Aspect: Developing an interpretation

Level: 4

Text format: Continuous

Situation: Personal

Here are some of the early references to the panther in the story.

 “the cry awoke her, a sound so anguished...” (line 27)

 “The answer was a repeated cry, but less shrill, tired sounding...” (line 36)

 “She had...heard their cries, like suffering, in the distance.” (lines 42–43)

Considering what happens in the rest of the story, why do you think the writer chooses to 

introduce the panther with these descriptions?

0 out of 2 Points: No Credit Sample Response at Level 1 or below

To one no that the panther was only wanting some to help him out. 

2 Points: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 5

Because the writer wanted to establish the fact that the woman in the story later 

realizes that even though it is a wild animal, it suffers just like her during the flood.

Average percent correct

Level 1 or below Level 5

U.S. average 5 80*

OECD average 6 70

*Significant difference between U.S. and OECD average.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

112

Released Question 36: The Gift

Aspect: Reflecting on text 

Level: 4

Text format: Continuous

Situation: Personal

Do you think that the last sentence of “The Gift” is an appropriate ending?

Explain your answer, demonstrating your understanding of how the last sentence relates to the 

story’s meaning. 

1 out of 2 Points: Partial Credit Sample Response at Level 1 or below

Yes, Because she was hungry, and she wanted to be happy and have something to eat, 

and the panter was feeling the same way. They wanted to be treated equal.

2 Points: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 5

Yes I think the last sentence is an appropriate ending for the story because when the 

cat left the bone gnawed to whiteness it shows the appreciation for “The Gift” of 

ham.

Average percent correct

Level 1 or below Level 5

U.S. average 3 70

OECD average 6 65

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), 2000 Reading Literacy Assessment.
Findings From PISA 2000

113

Lake Chad

Figure 1 shows changing levels of Lake Chad, in Saharan North Africa. Lake Chad disappeared 

completely in about 20,000 BC, during the last Ice Age. In about 11,000 BC it reappeared. 

Today, its level is about the same as it was in AD 1000.

Figure 2 shows Saharan rock art (ancient drawings or paintings found on the walls of caves) 

and changing patterns of wildlife.

0 

10000 BC

8000 BC6000 BC4000 BC2000 BC

AD 1000

Figure 1

10

20

30

40

50

60

depth in meters

Lake Chad:

changing levels

C. 4000 BC

Present day

buffalo

rhinoceros

hippopotamus

aurochs

elephant

giraffe

ostrich

gazelle

cattle

dog

horse

camel

Saharan rock art and changing patterns of wildlife

8000 BC 7000 BC 6000 BC 5000 BC 4000 BC 3000 BC 2000 BC 1000 BC 0 AD 1000

Figure 2
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

114

Use the information about Lake Chad to answer the question below.

Released Question 3: Lake Chad

Aspect: Reflecting on text

Level: 4

Text format: Noncontinuous

Situation: Public

Why has the author chosen to start the graph at this point?

1 Point: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 1 or below

 In about 11,000 BC it reapeared.

1 Point: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 5

It shows how deep the lake was thousands of years ago when the last ice age was and 

when the lake reappeared.

Average percent correct

Level 1 or below Level 5

U.S. average 6 75

OECD average 8 80

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), 2000 Reading Literacy Assessment.
Findings From PISA 2000

115

Personnel

CANCO Manufacturing Company

Personnel Department

Center on Internal and External Mobility

CANCO

What is CIEM?

CIEM stands for Center on Internal and 

External Mobility, an initiative of the personnel 

department. A number of workers of this 

department work in CIEM, together with 

members from other departments and outside 

career consultants.

CIEM is available to help employees in their 

search for another job inside or outside the 

Canco Manufacturing Company.

What does CIEM do?

CIEM supports employees who are seriously 

considering other work through the following 

activities:

• Job Data Bank

After an interview with the employee, 

information is entered into a data bank 

that tracks job seekers and job openings 

at Canco and at other manufacturing 

companies.

• Guidance

The employee’s potential is explored 

through career counselling discussions.

• Courses

Courses are being organized (in 

collaboration with the department for 

information and training) that will deal with 

job search and career planning.

• Career Change Projects

CIEM supports and coordinates projects to 

help employees prepare for new careers and 

new perspectives.

• Mediation

CIEM acts as a mediator for employees who 

are threatened with dismissal resulting from 

reorganisation, and assists with finding new 

positions when necessary.

How much does CIEM cost?

Payment is determined in consultation with the 

department where you work. A number of 

services of CIEM are free. You may also be asked 

to pay, either in money or in time.

How does CIEM work?

CIEM assists employees who are seriously 

considering another job within or outside the 

company.

That process begins by submitting an application. 

A discussion with a personnel counsellor can also 

be useful. It is obvious that you should talk with 

the counsellor first about your wishes and the 

internal possibilities regarding your career. The 

counsellor is familiar with your abilities and with 

developments within your unit.

Contact with CIEM in any case is made via the 

personnel counsellor. He or she handles the 

application for you, after which you are invited to 

a discussion with a CIEM representative.

For more information

The personnel department can give you more 

information.
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

116

Use the announcement from a personnel department to answer the questions below.

Released Question 43: Personnel

Aspect: Retrieving information

Level: 4

Text format: Continuous

Situation: Occupational

List two ways in which CIEM helps people who will lose their jobs because of a departmental 

reorganisation.

1 Point: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 1 or below

acts as a mediator for employees who are threatened with dismissal resulting from 

reorganization, and assists with finding new positions when necessary.

1 Point: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 5

They provide mediation & help find a new position.

Average percent correct

Level 1 or below Level 5

U.S. average 6* 58

OECD average 13 64

*Significant difference between U.S. and OECD average.

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), 2000 Reading Literacy Assessment.
Findings From PISA 2000

117

Labor 

The tree diagram below shows the structure of a country’s labor force or “working-age population.” 

The total population of the country in 1995 was about 3.4 million.

The Labor Force Structure year ended March 31, 1995 (ooos)1

1Numbers of people are given in thousands (000s).

2The working-age population is defined as people between the ages of 15 and 65.

3People “Not in labour force” are those not actively seeking work and/or not available for work.

Working-age population2

2,656.5

Not in labor force3

949.9 35.8%

In labor force

1,706.5 64.2%

Unemployed

128.1 7.5%

Employed

1,578.4 92.5%

Part-time

341.3 21.6%

Full-time

1,237.1 78.4%

Seeking 

full-time work

101.6 79.3%

Not seeking 

full-time work

318.1 93.2%

Seeking 

full-time work

23.2 6.8%

Seeking 

part-time work

26.5 20.7%
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

118

Use the information about a country’s labor force on the page 115 to answer the questions below.

Released Question 16: Labor

Aspect: Retrieving information

Level: 4

Text format: Noncontinuous

Situation: Educational

How many people of working age were not in the labor force? 

(Write the number of people, not the percentage.)

2 Points: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 1 or below

949,900

2 Points: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 5

949900 people

Average percent correct

Level 1 or below Level 5

U.S. average 1* 67

OECD average 4 71

*Significant difference between U.S. and OECD average.
Findings From PISA 2000

119

Released Question 17: Labor 

Aspect: Developing an interpretation

Level: 5

Text format: Noncontinuous

Situation: Educational

In which part of the tree diagram, if any, would each of the people listed in the table below be 

included? 

Show your answer by placing a cross in the correct box in the table.

The first one has been done for you.

2 Points: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 1 or below

“In labor force: 

employed”

“In labor force: 

unemployed”

“Not in 

labor force”

Not included

in any category

A part-time waiter, aged 35 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

A business woman, aged 43, who works 

a sixty-hour week ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

A full-time student, aged 21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

A man, aged 28, who recently sold his 

shop and is looking for work ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

A woman, aged 55, who has never 

worked or wanted to work outside the 

home ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

A grandmother, aged 80, who still works 

a few hours a day at the family’s market 

stall ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

120

Released Question 17: Labor—Continued 

2 Points: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 5

“In labor force: 

employed”

“In labor force: 

unemployed”

“Not in 

labor force”

Not included

in any category

A part-time waiter, aged 35 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

A business woman, aged 43, who works 

a sixty-hour week ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

A full-time student, aged 21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

A man, aged 28, who recently sold his 

shop and is looking for work ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

A woman, aged 55, who has never 

worked or wanted to work outside the 

home ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

A grandmother, aged 80, who still works 

a few hours a day at the family’s market 

stall ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Average percent correct

Level 1 or below Level 5

U.S. average 1 50

OECD average 1 43

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), 2000 Reading Literacy Assessment.
Findings From PISA 2000

121

Amanda and the Duchess

TEXT 1

Amanda and the Duchess

Summary: Since Léocadia’s death, the Prince, who was in love with her, has been inconsolable. At a shop called 

Réséda Soeurs, the Duchess, who is the Prince’s aunt, has met a young shop assistant, Amanda, who looks 

amazingly like Léocadia. The Duchess wants Amanda to help her set the Prince free from the memories which 

haunt him.

A crossroads in the castle grounds, a circular bench around a small obelisk...evening is falling...

AMANDA: I still don’t understand. What can I do for him, ma’am? I can’t 7believe you could possibly have 

thought...And why me? I’m not particularly pretty. And even if someone were very pretty—who could suddenly 

come between him and his memories like that?

THE DUCHESS: No-one but you. 

AMANDA, sincerely surprised: Me?

THE DUCHESS: The world is so foolish, my child. It sees only parades, gestures, badges of office...that must be 

why you have never been told. But my heart hasn’t deceived me—I almost cried out at Réséda Soeurs the first 

time I saw you. To someone who knew more of her than just her public image, you are the living likeness of 

Léocadia.

A silence. The evening birds have now taken over from the afternoon birds. The grounds are filled with shadows 

and twittering.

AMANDA, very gently: I really don’t think I can, ma’am. I have nothing, I am nothing, and those lovers...that was 

my fancy, don’t you see? 

She has got up. As if about to leave, she has picked up her small suitcase.

THE DUCHESS, gently also, and very wearily: Of course, my dear. I apologise. She in turn gets up, with difficulty, 

like an old woman. A bicycle bell is heard in the evening air; she gives a start.

Listen...it’s him! Just show yourself to him, leaning against this little obelisk where he first met her. Let him see 

you, even if it’s just this once, let him call out, take a sudden interest in this likeness, in this stratagem which I shall 

confess to him tomorrow and for which he will hate me—in anything but this dead girl who’ll take him away from 

me one of these days, I’m sure...(She has taken her by the arm.) You will do that, won’t you? I beg you most 

humbly, young lady. (She looks at her, beseechingly, and quickly adds:) And then, that way, you’ll see him too. 

And...I can feel that I’m blushing again from saying this to you—life is just too mad! That’s the third time I’ve blushed 

in sixty years, and the second time in ten minutes—you’ll see him; and if he could ever (why not him, since he’s 

handsome and charming and he wouldn’t be the first?) if he could ever have the good fortune, for himself and for 

me, to take your fancy for one moment...The bell again in the shadows, but very close now.

AMANDA, in a whisper: What should I say to him?

THE DUCHESS, gripping her arm: Simply say: “Excuse me, Sir, can you tell me the way to the sea?”

She has hurried into the deeper shadows of the trees. Just in time. There is a pale blur. It is the Prince on his bicycle. 

He passes very close to the pale blur of Amanda by the obelisk. She murmurs.

AMANDA: Excuse me, Sir...

He stops, dismounts from the bicycle, takes off his hat and looks at her.

THE PRINCE: Yes?

AMANDA: Can you tell me the way to the sea?
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

122

THE PRINCE: Take the second turning on your left.

He bows, sadly and courteously, gets back on the bicycle and rides away. The bell is heard again in the distance. 

The Duchess comes out of the shadows, very much an old woman.

AMANDA, gently, after a while: He didn’t recognise me... 

THE DUCHESS: It was dark...And then, who knows what face he gives her now, in his dreams? (She asks timidly:) 

The last train has gone, young lady. In any case, wouldn’t you like to stay at the castle tonight?

AMANDA, in a strange voice: Yes, ma’am.

It is completely dark. The two of them can no longer be seen in the shadows, and only the wind can be heard in 

the huge trees of the grounds.

THE CURTAIN FALLS

TEXT 2

Definitions of some theatrical occupations

Actor: plays a character on stage. 

Director: controls and oversees all aspects of a play. He not only positions the actors, arranges their 

entrances and exits and directs their acting, but also suggests how the script is to be interpreted.

Wardrobe staff: produce the costumes from a model.

Set designer: designs models of the sets and costumes. These models are then transformed into their 

full size in the workshop.

Props manager: in charge of finding the required props. The word “props” is used to mean everything that 

can be moved: armchairs, letters, lamps, bunches of flowers, etc. The sets and costumes are not props.

Sound technician: in charge of all sound effects required for the production. He is at the controls 

during the show.

Lighting assistant or lighting technician: in charge of lighting. He is also at the controls during the 

show. Lighting is so sophisticated that a well-equipped theatre can employ up to ten lighting technicians. 
Findings From PISA 2000

123

On the previous two pages there are two texts. Text 1 is an extract from the play Léocadia by Jean Anouilh 

and Text 2 gives definitions of theatrical occupations. Refer to the texts to answer the question which follows.

Released Question 40: Amanda and the Duchess

Aspect: Retrieving information

Level: 4

Text format: Continuous

Situation: Personal

The director positions the actors on the stage. On a diagram, the director represents Amanda with 

the letter A and the Duchess with the letter D.

Put an A and a D on the following diagram of the set to show approximately where Amanda and 

the Duchess are when the Prince arrives.

0 out of 1 Point: No Credit Sample Response at Level 1 or below

A

D
Characteristics of U.S. 15-Year-Old Low Achievers in an International Context

124

1 Point: Full Credit Sample Response at Level 5

Average percent correct

Level 1 or below Level 5

U.S. average 7 75

OECD average 14 80

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA), 2000 Reading Literacy Assessment.

A

D