Table of Contents
PISA 2025 United States Results: Why Rank Rose While Scores Fell
PISA 2025 United States results explained: US students climbed the rankings because other countries fell faster. What rank vs. score means, plus the asterisk.
The PISA 2025 United States results contain a trap for parents: American 15-year-olds rose in the international rankings while their own scores went down or stayed flat. Reading fell 14 points to 490, the lowest US reading score PISA has recorded. Math held at 463, sitting exactly on the OECD average. Science ticked up two points to 502. The United States “climbed” because Canada, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and a dozen other countries fell harder.
If your reaction to the headlines was relief, this article is for you. A rank is a comparison. A score is a measurement. When everyone else gets worse, your rank improves without you learning a thing.
Key Takeaways
- US scores in PISA 2025: science 502 (+2 since 2022), reading 490 (−14), math 463 (−2), computational problem solving 513 (OECD average 500).
- The US moved up in relative standing because the OECD average fell more: −14 in reading, −9 in math, −3 in science.
- US results carry an asterisk. The school response rate was 45% before replacement and 54% after; the OECD says it “is not possible to rule out bias” in US performance results.
- The US has one of the two widest gaps between its strongest and weakest science students of any system tested, over 290 points between the 90th and 10th percentiles.
- 17.5% of US students are low performers in all three subjects, while 17.8% are top performers in at least one, which is the “excellence with inequality” pattern.
PISA 2025 United States results: rank is not score
PISA is a two-hour assessment given by the OECD to representative samples of 15-year-olds in 91 education systems, and it reports scores on a scale where the OECD average was set at 500 when each subject was first tested. In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics runs the sample. The OECD’s Volume I, released September 8, 2026, lists the US at 502 in science, 490 in reading, 463 in math, and 513 in computational problem solving.
Chalkbeat’s headline captured what happened: the US gained ground “as other countries decline.” Tracey Burns of the National Center on Education and the Economy told Chalkbeat, “There’s an ongoing global decline, and it seems like the pandemic has a long, long tail.” The OECD’s Andreas Schleicher added that “learning outcomes have stagnated or declined in many countries, in some cases for well over a decade.”
Here is the mechanism. Rankings are ordinal. If the US drops 14 points in reading and Canada drops 17, Finland 16, Sweden 21, Denmark 29, and Norway 24, the US passes some of them on the way down. The scoreboard says “improved.” The measurement says “worse.”
The one domain where US kids can claim something real is computational problem solving, new in 2025. There, 513 versus an OECD average of 500 is an above-average score on an absolute scale, not just a relative one. We break down what those tasks look like in our guide to building PISA-style computational problem solving at home.
US versus OECD by domain
The table uses the OECD’s Table I.1 snapshot. Changes are 2022 to 2025. Low performers are students below Level 2 in science, reading, and math simultaneously; top performers reach Level 5 or 6 in at least one subject.
| Domain | US 2025 | OECD avg 2025 | US change since 2022 | OECD change since 2022 | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Science | 502 | 482 | +2 | −3 | Above average; flat |
| Reading | 490 | 461 | −14 | −14 | Above average; fell as fast as everyone |
| Mathematics | 463 | 463 | −2 | −9 | Exactly average; flat |
| Computational problem solving | 513 | 500 | new | new | Above average; the genuine bright spot |
| Low performers (all 3 subjects) | 17.5% | 19.7% | n/a | up from ~16% | Slightly better than average |
| Top performers (any subject) | 17.8% | 11.9% | n/a | n/a | Well above average |
Two things jump out. First, US reading fell exactly as much as the OECD average, so the “gain” in reading rank is pure relative motion. Second, the US has a much larger share of top performers than the OECD average while its low-performer share is only slightly better. That is the shape of a wide distribution.
The asterisk: why the OECD says US results should be read with caution
Every US number in the OECD report carries an asterisk, and the reason is in the Reader’s Guide, not the press release. PISA has sampling standards: a school response rate of at least 85% (or an acceptable rate after replacement schools are added) and a student response rate of at least 80%.
The US did not meet them. From Volume I: “School response rate: 45% before replacement; and 54% after replacement. Student response rate: 76%.” The OECD’s range-of-bias analysis says school non-participation “could lead to differences of up to about ±15.4% of a standard deviation, and student non-response up to about ±15.9%.” Its conclusion: “it is not possible to rule out bias in PISA performance results, nor to determine its most likely direction.”
There is a second gap. “More than 40% of responding students in the United States were not administered the student questionnaire,” partly because of state-level decisions. That means US data on AI use, curiosity, phone policies, and family support are thinner than in most countries.
None of this means the US numbers are wrong. It means the honest confidence interval around them is wider than the headline suggests. A parent should treat “US reading fell 14 points” as “US reading fell by something in the neighborhood of 14 points, and we cannot be certain which way the missing schools would have pushed it.” Albania is the only other country in the “limited reporting” category.
Excellence with inequality: the US distribution problem
The most useful US finding in Volume I is not the average. It is the spread. In science, the gap between the 90th and 10th percentile is about 258 points across OECD countries. “The largest differences between high- and low-achieving students in science are found in Luxembourg and the United States,” where “the inter-decile range is over 290 score points.”
Put plainly: the strongest 10% of US 15-year-olds are competitive with the strongest kids anywhere, and the weakest 10% are far behind. The OECD notes elsewhere that the US was one of only five systems (with Colombia, Korea, Macao, and Chinese Taipei) to increase its share of top performers over the past decade. The tail did not shrink to match.
This is consistent with what NCEE’s analysis called a system that “combines excellence with inequality.” It also explains why your experience of American schooling may not match the averages at all. A kid in a well-resourced suburban district and a kid in an under-resourced rural one are both “US students” in PISA, and the 290-point spread is the distance between them.
For a longer look at why spending does not fix this by itself, see our piece on the PISA paradox of US education spending versus outcomes.
What the US can and cannot learn from the countries that rose
Within the OECD, science scores rose since 2022 in the United Kingdom (+12), Türkiye (+18), the Slovak Republic (+13), and Costa Rica (+13). The UK is the most comparable case: an English-speaking system with a wide distribution that nonetheless posted 511 in science, 494 in reading, and 488 in math, and held reading flat while the OECD lost 14.
The OECD does not offer a recipe, and neither should I. But its preface lists the levers it thinks matter: consistent expectations in the core subjects, “depth over breadth” in curriculum, classrooms “kept free of avoidable digital distractions,” and AI “used in a targeted way for feedback and personalised practice” rather than as a substitute for effort.
One number worth knowing, from the OECD’s September 8 release: 28% of OECD students say classmates are distracted by devices in most or every science lesson. In B-S-J-Z (China), Japan, and Korea, it is under 10%. The report finds that schools with clear phone policies, whether bans or well-defined guidelines, report less distraction.
What to actually do with this at home
The national average is not your kid. But the pattern behind the average tells you where to look.
Ask your school for its own data, not PISA’s
PISA cannot tell you anything about your child’s school. State assessments and NAEP can. Ask what share of students in your kid’s grade are proficient in reading and math, and how that compares to three years ago. That is the local version of the “rank versus score” question.
Treat reading as the leading indicator
US reading fell 14 points, the same as the OECD, and the OECD’s analysis says the biggest losses were on long texts and on tasks that require evaluating and integrating information. One long read a week, in one sitting, followed by one question that requires connecting two parts of the text, targets that skill directly. Our article on the PISA 2025 reading decline has the detail.
Lean into the computational bright spot
US kids scored 513 on tasks that involve modeling, block-based programming, systematic experiments, and debugging. If your child likes that kind of thinking, feed it. The OECD says Level 3 on that scale, where students “combine a wider range of commands to build functional programs,” is a useful benchmark to aim for.
Watch the spread in your own house
If you have more than one child, the 290-point US spread is a reminder that “average” hides a lot. A strong reader and a struggling one can live under the same roof. Give the struggling one the long-read habit first.
What not to do
Do not use “the US moved up” as evidence that things are fine. Do not use “US reading hit a record low” as evidence that your child’s school is failing. Both are national statistics with a wide confidence interval and an asterisk. Use them to ask better local questions, not to draw conclusions about a specific classroom.
What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months
- Week 4: NCES typically publishes a US-specific PISA report with state and subgroup breakdowns after the OECD release. Check whether it addresses the 54% school response rate and what the non-response bias analysis found.
- Month 2 red flags: Local coverage that treats a rank change as an achievement change. If your district cites PISA in a board meeting, ask which number they mean.
- Month 3 self-check: Your child can read a 1,500-word article in one sitting and explain how two parts of it connect. That is the skill that fell furthest, in the US and everywhere else.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did US students actually get better in PISA 2025?
No. Science rose two points (not statistically meaningful), math fell two, and reading fell 14 to the lowest US reading score on record. The US moved up in rankings because the OECD average fell by more in reading and math than the US did. Rank is relative; score is the measurement.
Why is there an asterisk next to the United States?
The US missed PISA’s sampling standards. The school response rate was 45% before replacement schools were added and 54% after, and the student response rate was 76%. The OECD says it cannot rule out bias or determine its direction, and reports US results with “limited reporting” annotations, the same category as Albania.
How did the US do in computational problem solving?
The US scored 513 against an OECD average of 500, above average on an absolute scale. The tasks involve block-based programming, computer modeling, systematic experiments, and debugging, and about a quarter of OECD students reach the top two levels.
Is the US gap between strong and weak students unusual?
Yes. The OECD singles out Luxembourg and the United States as the two systems with the largest gap between the 90th and 10th percentile in science, over 290 points against an OECD average of 258. The US also has a much higher share of top performers (17.8%) than the OECD average (11.9%).
Which US state has the best PISA results?
PISA samples the United States as a whole, not by state, so it cannot rank states. NAEP, the “Nation’s Report Card,” is the assessment that provides state-level comparisons, and it is the better tool for local questions.
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
- OECD. (2026). “PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): Future-Ready Students.” OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volume-i_73451bc5-en.html
- OECD. (2026). “PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): Country Note, United States.” OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volume-i-country-notes_2d4ff9ea-en/united-states_0c8cbc7c-en.html
- Barnum, M., & Meltzer, E. (2026, September 8). “PISA results 2025 show U.S. gaining as other countries decline.” Chalkbeat. https://www.chalkbeat.org/2026/09/08/pisa-results-2025-show-us-gaining-as-other-countries-decline/
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2026). “Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).” NCES. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/
- National Center on Education and the Economy. (2026, August 26). “Thriving in a Complex World: PISA 2025 Results & Lessons for the U.S.” NCEE. https://ncee.org/thriving-in-a-complex-world-pisa-2025-results-lessons-for-the-u-s/
- OECD. (2026). “PISA 2025: Students’ reading and mathematics performance declined sharply across the OECD.” OECD press release, September 8, 2026. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2026/09/pisa-2025-students-reading-and-mathematics-performance-declined-sharply-across-the-oecd.html
- OECD. (2025). “TALIS 2024 Results.” OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/talis.html
