● Change in average score is significantly different than the change in the U.S. average score at the .05 level of significance. — Not available. † Not applicable. # Rounds to zero. * p<.05. Change in average score is significant at the .05 level of statistical significance. 1 Although the United Kingdom participated in 2000 and 2003, low response rates prevent its results from being included. 2 The PISA 2006 reading literacy results are not reported for the United States because of an error in printing the test booklets. 3 For Costa Rica the change between PISA 2009 and PISA 2012 represents change between 2010 and 2012 because these education systems implemented the PISA 2009 assessment in 2010 as part of PISA 2009. NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 2015 average score. The PISA reading framework was revised in 2009. Because of changes in the framework, it is not possible to compare reading learning outcomes from PISA 2000, 2003, and 2006 with those from PISA 2009, 2012, and 2015. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. Standard error is noted by s.e. Italics indicate non-OECD countries and education systems. B-S-J-G (China) refers to the four PISA participating China provinces: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Guangdong. Although Argentina, Malaysia, and Kazakhstan participated in PISA 2015, technical problems with their samples prevent results from being discussed in this report. SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015. |