Skip Navigation

International comparisons of achievement

Question:
How does the achievement of American students compare to that of students in other countries?

Response:

Reading Literacy at Grade 4

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) is an international comparative assessment that evaluates reading literacy at grade 4. The assessment is coordinated by the TIMSS1 and PIRLS International Study Center at Boston College with the support of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). PIRLS has been administered every 5 years since 2001. In 2016, there were 58 education systems that had PIRLS reading literacy data at grade 4.2 These 58 education systems included both countries and other benchmarking education systems (portions of a country, nation, kingdom, emirate, or other non-national entity).3 Sixteen of these education systems, including the United States, also administered ePIRLS, a new computer-based extension of PIRLS designed to assess students’ comprehension of online information.

In 2016, the average reading literacy score for fourth-grade students in the United States (549) was higher than the PIRLS scale centerpoint (500).4 The U.S. average score was higher than the average scores of 30 education systems (over half of the participating education systems) and not measurably different from the average scores of 15 education systems. The United States scored lower than 12 education systems: Moscow City (Russian Federation), the Russian Federation, Singapore, Hong Kong (China), Ireland, Finland, Poland, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), Norway, Chinese Taipei (China), England (United Kingdom), and Latvia.


Average reading scale scores of fourth-grade students on PIRLS, by education system: 2016

The data in this figure is described in the surrounding text.

1 National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent of the National Target Population (but at least 77 percent).

2 National Defined Population covers 90 to 95 percent of the National Target Population.

3 Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after replacement schools were included.

4 Did not satisfy guidelines for sample participation rates.

5 National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population.

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by PIRLS average scale score. Italics indicate participants identified as a non-national entity that represents a portion of a country. The PIRLS scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000, with the scale centerpoint set at 500 and the standard deviation set at 100. Education systems that did not administer PIRLS at the target grade are not shown. For more information about individual countries and assessment methodology, please see Methods and Procedures in PIRLS 2016 (https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/publications/pirls/2016-methods.html).


In 2016, the United States, along with 15 other education systems, participated in the new ePIRLS assessment of students’ comprehension of online information. The average online informational reading score for fourth-grade students in the United States (557) was higher than the ePIRLS scale centerpoint (500). The U.S. average score was higher than the average scores of 10 education systems and not measurably different from the average scores of 2 education systems. Only three education systems (Singapore, Norway, and Ireland) scored higher than the United States.

1 The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assesses mathematics and science knowledge and skills at grades 4 and 8. For more information on TIMSS, see indicator International Comparisons: Mathematics and Science Achievement at Grades 4 and 8.

2 PIRLS was administered in 61 education systems. However, three education systems did not administer PIRLS at the target grade and are not included in this analysis.

3 The IEA differentiates between IEA members, referred to always as “countries,” and “benchmarking participants.” IEA member countries include both “countries,” which are complete, independent political entities, and “other education systems,” or non-national entities (e.g., England, the Flemish community of Belgium). Non-national entities that are not IEA member countries (e.g., Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates], Ontario [Canada]) are designated as “benchmarking participants.” These benchmarking systems are able to participate in PIRLS even though they may not be members of the IEA. For convenience, the generic term “education systems” is used when summarizing across results.

4 PIRLS and ePIRLS scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000, with the scale centerpoint set at 500 and the standard deviation set at 100. The scale centerpoint represents the mean of the overall PIRLS achievement distribution in 2001. The PIRLS scale is the same in each administration; thus a value of 500 in 2016 equals 500 in 2001.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The Condition of Education 2018 (NCES 2018-144), International Comparisons: Reading Literacy at Grade 4.

Mathematics and Science Achievement at Grades 4 and 8

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is an international comparative study that has measured trends in mathematics and science achievement at the 4th and 8th grade every 4 years since 1995. In 2019, TIMSS assessed the mathematics and science skills of 4th-graders in 64 education systems and of 8th-graders in 46 education systems. Education systems include member countries of the IEA (countries that are complete, independent, political entities, as well as subnational entities) and benchmarking participants (subnational entities that are not IEA member countries).1 This Fast Fact compares the U.S. average scores in both subjects with those of other education systems. It also looks at “score gaps” between the high- and low-performers in mathematics and science. Score gaps are the differences between the scores of students in the 90th and 10th percentiles of the distribution in a given subject. These gaps can be seen as an indicator of equity within an education system.

At grade 4, the U.S. average mathematics score (535) in 2019 was higher than the TIMSS scale “centerpoint” (500).2 Fourteen education systems had higher average mathematics scores than the United States, 7 had scores that were not measurably different, and 42 education systems had lower average scores. The 14 education systems with average mathematics scores above the U.S. score were Singapore, Hong Kong (China), the Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Moscow City (Russia), Russian Federation, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), England (United Kingdom), Ireland, Latvia, Dubai (United Arab Emirates), Norway, and Lithuania.


Average scores and 10th and 90th percentile scores of 4th-grade students on the TIMSS mathematics scale and percentile score gaps, by education system: 2019

The data in this figure is described in the surrounding text.

90th to 10th percentile score gap is higher than the U.S. score gap.

90th to 10th percentile score gap is lower than the U.S. score gap.

1 National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent of the National Target Population (but at least 77 percent), as defined by TIMSS.

2 Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after replacement schools were included.

3 National Defined Population covers 90 to 95 percent of the National Target Population, as defined by TIMSS.

4 Did not satisfy guidelines for sample participation rates.

5 National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population, as defined by TIMSS.

6 Reservations about reliability because the percentage of students with achievement too low for estimation exceeds 15 percent but does not exceed 25 percent.

NOTE: In addition to average scores, this figure shows the scores for the (a) 10th percentile—the bottom 10 percent of students; and (b) 90th percentile—the top 10 percent of students. The percentile ranges are specific to each education system’s distribution of scores, enabling users to compare scores across education systems. Education systems are ordered by average score. Education systems that are not countries are designated by their country in parentheses. Benchmarking participants are indicated with italics. For education systems with a “(5)” after their name, 5 indicates the years of formal schooling; these education systems chose to administer TIMSS at a different grade than other education systems (4 years of formal schooling). The TIMSS scale centerpoint is set at 500 and represents the mean of the overall achievement distribution in 1995. The standard deviation is set to 100. The TIMSS scale is the same in each administration (0 to 1,000 points); thus, a value of 500 in 2019 equals 500 in 1995. Although rounded numbers are displayed, data shown are based on unrounded estimates.


In the United States, the mathematics cut score for high-performing 4th-graders (i.e., those at the 90th percentile) was 639 points, and the cut score for low-performing 4th-graders (i.e., those at the 10th percentile) was 421 points. The difference between these two cut scores (219 points) is the mathematics score gap between the high- and low-performing U.S. 4th-graders. The U.S. score gap was larger than the corresponding score gaps in 37 education systems and smaller than the gaps in 14 education systems. Score gaps ranged from 157 points (the smallest) in Moscow City (Russia) to 293 points (the largest) in Kuwait.

At grade 4, the U.S. average science score (539) in 2019 was also higher than the TIMSS scale “centerpoint” of 500. Seven education systems had higher average science scores than the United States, 9 had scores that were not measurably different, and 47 education systems had lower average scores. The 7 education systems with average science scores above the U.S. score were Moscow City (Russia), Singapore, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and Finland.

In the United States, the science cut score for high-performing 4th-graders was 641 points, and the cut score for low-performing 4th-graders was 426 points. The difference between these two cut scores (214 points) is the science score gap between the high- and low-performing U.S. 4th-graders. The U.S. score gap was larger than the corresponding score gaps in 37 education systems and smaller than the gaps in 15 education systems. Score gaps ranged from 151 points (the smallest) in Croatia to 347 points (the largest) in South Africa.

At grade 8, the U.S. average mathematics score (515) in 2019 was higher than the TIMSS scale “centerpoint” of 500. Ten education systems had higher average mathematics scores than the United States, 7 had scores that were not measurably different, and 28 education systems had lower average scores. The 10 education systems with average mathematics scores above the U.S. score were Singapore, Chinese Taipei, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Hong Kong (China), Moscow City (Russia), the Russian Federation, Quebec (Canada), Dubai (United Arab Emirates), and Ontario (Canada).

In the United States, the mathematics cut score for high-performing 8th-graders was 642 points, and the cut score for low-performing 8th-graders was 385 points. The difference between these two cut scores (256 points) is the mathematics score gap between the high- and low-performing U.S. 8th-graders. The U.S. score gap was larger than the corresponding score gaps in 31 education systems and smaller than the gap in 1 education system. Score gaps ranged from 170 points (the smallest) in Quebec (Canada) to 282 points (the largest) in Turkey.

At grade 8, the U.S. average science score (522) in 2019 was higher than the TIMSS scale “centerpoint” of 500. Ten education systems had higher average science scores than the United States, 9 had scores that were not measurably different, and 26 education systems had lower average scores. The 10 education systems with average science scores above the U.S. score were Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Moscow City (Russia), the Republic of Korea, Dubai (United Arab Emirates), the Russian Federation, Finland, Quebec (Canada), and Lithuania.

In the United States, the science cut score for high-performing 8th-graders on the 2019 TIMSS science scale was 642 points, and the cut score for low-performing 8th-graders was 388 points. The difference between these two cut scores (254 points) is the science score gap between the high- and low-performing U.S. 8th-graders. The U.S. score gap was larger than the corresponding score gaps in 24 education systems and smaller than the gaps in 4 education systems. Score gaps ranged from 175 points (the lowest) in Moscow City (Russia) to 359 points (the largest) in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates).

1 Benchmarking systems are able to participate in TIMSS even though they may not be members of the IEA. Participating allows them the opportunity to assess their students’ achievement and to evaluate their curricula in an international context.

2 TIMSS scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000, with a scale centerpoint set at 500 and the standard deviation set at 100. The TIMSS scale centerpoint represents the mean of the overall achievement distribution in 1995. The TIMSS scale is the same in each administration; thus, a value of 500 in 2019 equals 500 in 1995 when that was the international average.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). The Condition of Education 2021 (NCES 2021-144), International Comparisons: Mathematics and Science Achievement at Grades 4 and 8.

Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy of 15-Year-Old Students

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), has measured the performance of 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy every 3 years since 2000. In 2018, PISA was administered in 791 countries and education systems,2 including all 37 member countries of the OECD. PISA 2018 results are reported by average scale score (from 0 to 1,000).

In 2018, average reading literacy scores ranged from 340 in the Philippines to 555 in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang (B-S-J-Z) (China). The U.S. average reading score (505) was higher than the OECD average score (487). Compared to the 76 other education systems in PISA 2018, the U.S. average reading literacy score was lower than the average in 8 education systems, higher than the average in 57 education systems, and not measurably different from the average in 11 education systems.


Average scores of 15-year-old students on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading literacy scale, by education system: 2018

The data in this figure is described in the surrounding text.

Average score is higher than U.S. average score at the .05 level of statistical significance.

Average score is lower than U.S. average score at the .05 level of statistical significance.

1 B-S-J-Z (China) refers to the four PISA participating China provinces: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang.

2 At least 50 percent but less than 75 percent of the 15-year-old population is covered by the PISA sample.

3 Less than 50 percent of the 15-year-old population is covered by the PISA sample.

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 2018 average score. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. Italics indicate non-OECD countries and education systems. Education systems are marked as OECD countries if they were OECD members in 2018. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries, with each country weighted equally. In the case of reading literacy, the 2018 OECD average does not include Spain due to issues with its PISA 2018 reading literacy data. Although Spain’s PISA 2018 data meet international technical standards, its reading literacy data show unusual student response behavior that prevent them from being reported at this time. Although Vietnam participated in PISA 2018, technical problems with its data prevent results from being discussed in this Fast Fact.


In mathematics literacy, average scores in 2018 ranged from 325 in the Dominican Republic to 591 in B-S-J-Z (China). The U.S. average mathematics score (478) was lower than the OECD average score (489). Compared to the 77 other education systems in PISA 2018, the U.S. average mathematics literacy score was lower than the average in 30 education systems, higher than the average in 39 education systems, and not measurably different from the average in 8 education systems.

Average scores in science literacy in 2018 ranged from 336 in the Dominican Republic to 590 in B-S-J-Z (China). The U.S. average science score (502) was higher than the OECD average score (489). Compared to the 77 other education systems in PISA 2018, the U.S. average science literacy score was lower than the average in 11 education systems, higher than the average in 55 education systems, and not measurably different from the average in 11 education systems.

1Although Spain's PISA 2018 data meet international technical standards, its reading literacy data show unusual student response behavior that prevent them from being reported at this time. Although Vietnam participated in PISA 2018, technical problems with its data prevent results from being discussed. Therefore, results are presented for 77 education systems for reading literacy and 78 education systems for mathematics and science literacy.

2 For the purposes of this Fast Fact, "education systems" refers to all entities participating in PISA, including countries as well as subnational entities (e.g., cities or provinces).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). The Condition of Education 2020 (NCES 2020-144), International Comparisons: Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy of 15-Year-Old Students; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Highlights of U.S. PISA 2018 Results Web Report (NCES 2020-166).

Related Tables and Figures:  (Listed by Release Date)

Other Resources:  (Listed by Release Date)