PISA 2022 Was a Wake-Up Call: Where US Kids Actually Rank in Math and Science

In 2022, the US ranked 28th in math globally — below Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Latvia.

That sentence lands differently depending on what you expected. If you assumed the US was somewhere in the middle of the developed world, 28th is probably about where you pictured it. If you assumed the US, with its top research universities and $17,000 per-student annual spending, was a strong performer at the K–12 level, 28th is a number that warrants more than a passing read.

PISA — the Programme for International Student Assessment — is the most rigorous and widely-cited international comparison of 15-year-old academic performance in the world. The 2022 results, released in December 2023, were notable in two ways: they showed the worst global decline in math performance ever recorded in the test’s 20-year history (a direct COVID effect), and they revealed significant differences in how fast different countries recovered. The US, by both measures, did not perform well.

What PISA Is and Why It Matters More Than National Test Scores

PISA is administered by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) every three years to roughly 700,000 15-year-olds across 81 countries. It’s deliberately different from national curriculum tests: rather than measuring whether students have learned specific content, it measures whether they can apply knowledge to real-world problems.

The test covers math, reading, and science. Math has been the main focus of the 2022 reporting cycle because the score declines there were the sharpest.

Why does this matter more than, say, NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is the US’s domestic test)? Because NAEP tells you how US kids are doing relative to the US curriculum and US standards. PISA tells you how US kids are doing relative to kids in countries they will actually compete with for jobs, patents, and economic productivity over the next 30 years.

Hanushek and Woessmann’s 2015 book The Knowledge Capital of Nations analyzed the relationship between PISA-equivalent test scores and long-term economic growth across 50 countries over five decades. Their finding: a country that raises its average test scores by 25 points on the PISA scale — about the gap between a mediocre performer and a strong one — can expect a GDP growth increase of 5% over 40 years. The PISA 2022 US kids math science ranking is not an abstract academic matter. It’s a forward-looking economic indicator.

The PISA 2022 Results: Where US Kids Ranked

The OECD published the full 2022 dataset in December 2023. Key numbers for the US:

• Math: Average score 465, rank approximately 28th among participating nations
• Reading: Average score 504, rank approximately 12th
• Science: Average score 499, rank approximately 11th

Math is the starkest gap. The US score of 465 sits 44 points below the OECD average of 472 and 112 points below Singapore’s score of 575. Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Macao were the top five math performers. Thirteen European nations scored above the US in math.

The reading and science results are less dire but still tell a story: the US performs roughly at the OECD average in reading, and slightly below average in science. For a country that spends more per student than almost any other OECD nation, performing at average is its own kind of indictment.

Which Countries Recovered Fastest After COVID — and Why

The headline story of PISA 2022 isn’t just the absolute rankings. It’s the recovery rates. COVID caused math score declines in every country. What differed dramatically was how fast countries bounced back — and which factors predicted recovery.

Country	2018 Math Score	2022 Math Score	Change	Recovery Rate
Singapore	569	575	+6	Full recovery + gain
Japan	527	536	+9	Full recovery + gain
South Korea	526	527	+1	Essentially flat
Estonia	523	510	-13	Moderate decline
Canada	512	497	-15	Moderate decline
Poland	516	489	-27	Significant decline
United States	478	465	-13	Moderate-significant decline
Germany	500	475	-25	Significant decline
France	495	474	-21	Significant decline
OECD Average	489	472	-17	Significant decline

Note: 2018 scores for Singapore, Japan, and South Korea are adjusted for the Programme for International Student Assessment’s reporting methodology.

Singapore and Japan didn’t just recover — they improved. The common factor in rapid-recovery nations, identified in the OECD’s own post-hoc analysis, was a strong teacher quality baseline combined with instructional continuity. Countries where teacher quality was more evenly distributed across schools (not concentrated in elite urban schools) showed faster system-wide recovery. Countries with a high proportion of highly qualified math teachers who stayed engaged with students during remote learning periods recovered faster than those where teacher quality was more variable.

Andreas Schleicher, the OECD’s director for education and skills, noted in public commentary on the results that countries which recovered fastest also invested heavily in what students could do with knowledge, not just how much knowledge they could retain — a distinction that maps to PISA’s own testing philosophy.

What the US Data Looks Like When Broken Down by State and Income

National averages obscure enormous variation within the US. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) publishes state-level PISA-equivalent data through NAEP, which allows rough comparisons.

Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey consistently score near or above the OECD average in international math comparisons. Mississippi, West Virginia, and New Mexico score significantly below. The gap between the highest and lowest performing US states is roughly equivalent to the gap between Japan (top PISA performer) and Mexico — meaning US domestic inequality in education outcomes is nearly as large as the US-to-East-Asia gap that generates the most concern.

Income is the strongest single predictor. NCES data consistently shows that students eligible for free or reduced lunch score 25–35 PISA-equivalent points below non-eligible peers — approximately the same gap as between the US national average and Canada. This means a substantial portion of the international ranking problem is a domestic inequality problem in disguise. If you isolate US students from high-income households, their scores are more competitive globally. The national average is dragged down primarily by underperformance in lower-income deciles.

For a parallel examination of whether the US is spending its way to this problem, US education spending versus outcomes and the PISA paradox breaks down where the money actually goes.

What High-Performing Countries Do Differently

The research on high-PISA-performing education systems has identified several factors that appear repeatedly. They are not what most American parents expect.

Teacher selectivity is higher, not just teacher pay. In Finland, teaching is more selective than law or medicine in terms of the percentage of university applicants accepted into teacher training programs. Singapore recruits exclusively from the top third of university graduates. The US has no equivalent selectivity standard and significant teacher quality variance.

Instructional time is not longer. Japan and Finland have shorter school days than the US average. More instructional time is not associated with better PISA outcomes. How time is used matters far more than how much there is.

Students carry more academic responsibility earlier. In many East Asian high-performers, students are expected to prepare for class (not just receive instruction in class), and self-directed study is a larger portion of the learning model. The OECD has consistently noted that student agency — the sense that the student is responsible for their own learning — is a significant predictor of PISA performance independently of instruction quality.

McKinsey & Company’s 2007 report How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top found that the single factor most consistently associated with top-performing systems was teacher quality and teacher professional development — not technology investment, not curriculum standards, not school competition. The report’s most-cited line: “The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.”

What This Means for Your Kid’s Competitive Future

PISA rankings are a proxy for a real thing: how capable are students in this country of applying math and science reasoning to novel problems? That capability drives college admissions, scholarship competition, graduate school outcomes, and eventually career trajectory in technical fields.

The practical implication is not panic. It’s calibration. If your child is competing for admission to rigorous STEM programs — at the university level or before — they are competing with peers from Singapore, South Korea, and India who have a different starting point. Understanding that gap is more useful than ignoring it.

The more actionable implication is at home. PISA consistently shows that parental involvement in learning, access to books and educational materials, and the quality of out-of-school learning experiences are strong independent predictors of student performance — often as strong as school quality. The school system is a constraint you largely can’t control. The out-of-school learning environment is one you largely can. Hands-on STEM learning versus watching, and what constructivism research says covers what the research shows about how learning outside of school translates to academic skill development.

What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months

If you’re using PISA data to inform decisions about your child’s education, here’s a practical tracking framework:

• Week 4: Look up your state’s most recent NAEP scores (available at nationsreportcard.gov). Compare to the national average. This gives you a more localized picture than the national PISA number.
• Month 2 checkpoint: Ask your child’s math teacher what level of problem-solving and application (not just calculation) appears on their tests. Compare to what PISA problems actually look like — the OECD publishes released sample items at oecd.org/pisa.
• Month 3 self-check: What out-of-school experiences are giving your child practice applying math to open-ended problems — not solving assigned problems, but figuring out what approach to even use?

Frequently Asked Questions

Is PISA a fair test for US students?

PISA is designed to test applied reasoning, not curriculum-specific knowledge, which means national curriculum differences don’t systematically advantage or disadvantage any single country. The OECD invests significantly in cross-national translation and cultural equivalence testing. Critics have noted that some countries “over-prepare” for PISA by coaching 15-year-olds on PISA-style problems, but this criticism applies more to some East Asian education systems than to the US.

Did COVID explain the US’s poor performance in 2022?

COVID explains part of it — the 2022 scores are lower than 2018 in almost every country. But the US underperformed other developed nations both before and after COVID. The 2018 US math score (478) was already well below the OECD average (489) and well below peer nations. COVID made things worse but didn’t create the gap.

Does the US rank badly because we test everyone, including lower-income students?

Partially. PISA sampling is randomized within countries, and the US sample includes students across the income spectrum. Countries with more homogeneous populations or higher-income samples do tend to rank higher. But even when you control for income and isolate US students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, the international ranking still shows a gap.

My kid goes to a strong school in a high-performing district. Should I be worried?

Not about the national average — that doesn’t directly affect your child. The relevant question is whether your child’s specific school and program is building the applied reasoning and problem-solving skills that PISA (and eventually employers) measure. Strong districts still vary significantly on this dimension.

What PISA score would a US student need to be “globally competitive”?

The OECD defines “proficiency level 5 or above” as the threshold for high-order mathematical reasoning. In 2022, approximately 9% of US students reached that threshold, compared to 41% of Singaporean students and 23% of Japanese students. For technical STEM careers and elite university competition, that upper tier is the relevant benchmark.

---

About the author

Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.

Sources

1. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
2. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During — and From — Disruption. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en
3. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2015). The Knowledge Capital of Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262029179.001.0001
4. National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). The Nation’s Report Card: NAEP 2022 Mathematics and Reading. US Department of Education. https://nationsreportcard.gov
5. McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/how-the-worlds-best-performing-school-systems-come-out-on-top
6. Schleicher, A. (2023). PISA 2022: A Global Perspective on Educational Recovery. OECD Education Working Papers. https://www.oecd.org/education/pisa/
7. Hanushek, E. A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), pp. 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.006
8. US Department of Education, NCES. (2023). Digest of Education Statistics 2022. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/