Peggy G. Carr, Ph.D.
Acting Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics

NCES Statement on PISA 2015 results
December 6, 2016

Commissioner Peggy G. Carr's Briefing Slides (6 MB)

Today, the National Center for Education Statistics is releasing results from the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).

Overall, the results show no measurable change in U.S. 15-year-olds’ average scores in science or reading literacy between 2015 and any of the previous PISA cycles to which comparison can be made. Mathematics scores, however, have declined since 2009. Additionally, U.S. students scored below the OECD average score in mathematics literacy, but were not measurably different from the OECD average in science and reading literacy.

Two U.S. states participated in PISA 2015 not only as part of the U.S. national sample of public and two states, but also individually with state-level samples: Massachusetts and North Carolina. Puerto Rico also participated individually in PISA 2015; however, schools in Puerto Rico were not included in the U.S. sample.

In 2015, average scores for Massachusetts 15-year-olds were above the U.S. average in all three subjects; North Carolina’s average scores were not measurably different than the U.S. average in all three subjects; and Puerto Rico’s average scores were below the U.S. average in all three subjects.

About PISA

PISA is a system of international assessments that allows countries to compare outcomes of learning as students near the end of compulsory schooling. PISA has measured the performance of 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy every three years since 2000. In 2015, PISA was administered in 73 education systems, including all 35 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and 35 other countries and subnational education systems. Of these 73, results can be reported for 70 education systems.

PISA’s goal is to assess students’ preparation for the challenges of life as young adults. PISA assesses the application of knowledge in mathematics, science, and reading literacy to problems within a real-life context. PISA does not focus explicitly on curricular outcomes and uses the term “literacy” in each subject area to indicate its broad focus on the application of knowledge and skills.

Each PISA data collection cycle assesses one of the three core subject areas in depth (considered the major subject area), although all three core subjects are assessed in each cycle. Science was the major subject area in 2015 and more detailed information is available on performance in science. In the vast majority of education systems in 2015, science, reading, and mathematics literacy were assessed through a computer-based assessment.

In each participating education system, probability sampling was used to obtain a representative sample of all 15-year-old students, regardless of grade, educational track, or school program type.

How PISA Is Reported

PISA results are presented in the report released today in terms of average scale scores (on a scale of 0-1,000) and the percentage of 15-year-old students reaching selected proficiency levels, comparing the United States with other participating education systems as well as the OECD average (the average of the national averages of the 35 OECD member countries). Results for Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Puerto Rico are also reported.

For proficiency levels, results are reported in terms of the percentage reaching PISA proficiency levels 5 and above and the percentage below PISA proficiency level 2. Higher proficiency levels represent the knowledge, skills, and capabilities needed to perform tasks of greater complexity. At levels 5 and 6, students demonstrate higher-level skills and are referred to as “top performers” in the subject. Conversely, students performing below proficiency level 2 are considered “low performers” who are able to demonstrate only the most basic, everyday knowledge and skills.

All differences described here using PISA data are statistically significant at the .05 level. Differences that are not statistically significant are referred to as being “not measurably different” or are not discussed.

U.S. Performance in Science Literacy

Average Scores

In 2015, average scores in science literacy ranged from 556 in Singapore to 332 in the Dominican Republic. The U.S. average (496) was not measurably different than the OECD average (493) or North Carolina average (502). It was lower than the average for 18 education systems (12 of which are OECD members), as well as Massachusetts (529). The U.S. average was higher than Puerto Rico (403).

Education systems with scores not measurably different than the United States included Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Portugal, Norway, Austria, France, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Spain, and Latvia.

Proficiency Levels

Percentages of top-performing 15-year-old students in science literacy ranged from 24 percent in Singapore to rounding to zero in 10 education systems. In the United States, 9 percent of 15-year-old students scored at proficiency levels 5 and above in science, which was not measurably different than the OECD average of 8 percent.

The percentage of 15-year-old students performing below proficiency level 2 ranged from 6 percent in Vietnam to 86 percent in the Dominican Republic. In the United States, 20 percent or 1 in 5 U.S. 15-year-old students scored below proficiency level 2—on par with the OECD average (21 percent).

U.S. Performance in Reading Literacy

Average Scores

Average scores in reading literacy ranged from 535 in Singapore to 347 in Lebanon in 2015. The U.S. average (497) was not measurably different than the OECD average (493) or the average for North Carolina (500). It was lower than 14 education systems (of which 11 are OECD members) and Massachusetts (527). It was higher than the average score for Puerto Rico (410).

Education systems with average scores not measurably different than the U.S. average included the Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, France, Belgium, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Chinese Taipei, Spain, the Russian Federation, the average of the four reporting provinces in mainland China¬ (Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Guangdong, referred to as B-S-J-G), and Switzerland.

Proficiency Levels

Percentages of top performing 15-year-old students in reading literacy in 2015 ranged from 18 percent in Singapore to rounding to zero in 5 education systems. In the United States, 10 percent of U.S. 15-year-old students scored at proficiency levels 5 and above, which was not measurably different from the OECD average (8 percent).

The percentage of 15-year-old students performing below proficiency level 2 ranged from 9 percent in Hong Kong to 79 percent in Algeria. In the United States, 19 percent or about 1 in 5 U.S. 15-year-old students scored below proficiency level 2, which was not measurably different than the OECD average (20 percent).

U.S. Performance in Mathematics Literacy

Average scores in 2015 in mathematics literacy ranged from 564 in Singapore to 328 in the Dominican Republic. The U.S. average score was 470, which was lower than the OECD average (490), as well as the average scores for 36 education systems (of which 27 are OECD members) and Massachusetts (500). The U.S. average score was not measurably different than the average score for North Carolina (471), and was higher than the average in Puerto Rico (378).

Education systems with average scores not measurably different than the U.S. average included Hungary, the Slovak Republic, Israel, Croatia, and Buenos Aires (Argentina).

Proficiency Levels

Percentages of top performing 15-year-old students in mathematics literacy in 2015 ranged from 35 percent in Singapore to rounding to zero in 5 education systems. In the United States, 6 percent of 15-year-old students scored at proficiency levels 5 and above, which was lower than the OECD average (11 percent).

The percentage of 15-year-old students performing below proficiency level 2 in mathematics literacy ranged from 7 percent in Macau (China) to 91 percent in the Dominican Republic. In 2015, 29 percent of U.S. 15-year-old students scored below proficiency level 2, which was higher than the OECD average of 23 percent.

U.S. Performance Over Time

The U.S. PISA 2015 average scores in science literacy and reading literacy were not measurably different than any earlier comparable time point. In mathematics literacy, the 2015 average score (470) was lower than the 2009 average score (487) and the 2012 average score (481).

For More Information

This statement highlights some of the major findings from PISA 2015 from the U.S. perspective; the U.S. national report, Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science, Reading, and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context, is available on the NCES website and includes more details. For more information on PISA and the U.S. PISA 2015 results, including additional results not discussed here, please visit NCES’ PISA website at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/. Also, other findings are available in the OECD’s report on PISA 2015.

Commissioner Peggy G. Carr's Briefing Slides (6 MB)

Top