US Students’ Academic Achievements for 2025: Performance Still Lags Behind OECD Peers

by Imed Bouchrika, Phd

Co-Founder and Chief Data Scientist

Share

There are many study tips and strategies teachers can impart to their students. But how can a country verify if its learners are excelling on the world stage? It’s not enough to check student performance based on school grades.

That’s why educational assessments such as the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) are important. The PISA and IEA provide benchmarks by which developed and developing countries can measure the academic performance of students.

But once countries have the benchmark and have made the comparison, what happens next? How can they benefit from the data derived from these cross-national evaluations? These are among the key questions that this article will attempt to answer.

How U.S. Students Compare with Their Peers: Table of Contents

1. Program for International Student Assessment
2. What policy interventions can drive educational excellence in the U.S.?
3. How Can Online Learning Enhance Educational Outcomes?
4. Can Accelerated Master's Programs Enhance Educational Leadership?
5. Can Fast-Track Degree Programs Foster Educational Innovation and Student Success?
6. What Changed Between PISA 2018 and PISA 2015?
7. Can Short-Duration Master’s Programs Enhance Educational Reform?
8. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
9. National Assessment of Educational Progress
10. Socioeconomic Factors on U.S. Student Performance
11. How can specialized teacher training boost student performance?
12. Can alternative certification programs enhance career readiness?

Program for International Student Assessment

The PISA is a cross-national assessment that gauges the mathematical, scientific, and reading abilities of 15-year-old students in different countries. It is spearheaded by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which first did its international test measuring the academic achievement of students in 2000. After that, the organization has been holding the assessment every three years, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES n.d.) explains. At first, only industrialized countries like the United States and the United Kingdom participated. Later on, though, even less-developed nations joined in the assessments.

The latest PISA, as of this writing, was held in 2018. At the time, 79 OECD and partner countries took part in the assessment.

The United States

In the 2018 PISA, 15-year-old students from the U.S. scored an average of 505 in reading. This was higher than the OECD average of 487 in the field. In mathematics, the students had a mean score of 478, which was lower than the OECD average of 489. Additionally, in science, the performance was higher than the OECD average (489), as the students attained a mean score of 502. Among the three subjects, U.S. students lagged behind the international average in mathematics (Education GPS, n.d.).

With these scores, the US education ranking was in 13th place overall, putting it behind Sweden and New Zealand. It also achieved slightly higher scores than the U.K., Japan, Australia, and Chinese Taipei. However, when the sum of the mean scores is calculated, the U.S. ranked 22nd. That put the country behind Switzerland, Norway, and the Czech Republic and ahead of France, Portugal, and Austria (Armstrong, 2019).

The good news is, the U.S. has improved its PISA scores between 2015 and 2018. In 2015, 15-year-olds in the U.S. had an average score of 497 in reading according to the PISA International Data Explorer (2015). For mathematics, the overall average was 470. Lastly, in science, the students who participated in the assessment scored an average of 496.

The results show that 15-year-olds in the U.S. were most proficient in reading while they are not far behind in science. However, while they also did well in mathematics, there is a 20-point gap in the average scores.

Overall, American students placed 24th in reading, 38th in mathematics, and 25th in science. The total average of the students’ performance was 470. The OECD average was 490, putting the U.S. students’ academic achievement way below many of the high academic achievement of their OECD peers (Heim, 2016). This, despite the U.S. being home to many of the world’s top universities.

Despite the increase in U.S. scores, it is not that significant. There is much to be done if the U.S. wants to break into the top five in PISA. As Walker (2016) noted, the distribution of materials for quality education is necessary for lifting the school performance of the American student body, especially in public schools in the US.

The Rest of the World

Highest-Ranking Countries

The top five territories that had glowing results in the 2018 PISA were China (Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang), Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong, and Estonia, as reported by Barshay (2019). B-S-J-Z (China) had average scores of 555, 591, and 590 in reading, mathematics, and science, respectively.

Singapore had impressive results as well, according to the same report. Fifteen-year-old students from the Southeast Asian country averaged 549 in reading, 569 in mathematics, and 551 in science. The average scores of Macau, Hong Kong, and Estonia were only slightly significantly different from those of the two top performers.

Also in the top 10 were Canada, Finland, Ireland, South Korea, and Poland.

In the previous PISA 2015, Singapore came out on top for reading, mathematics, and science. Students from the small island-city state had average scores of 535, 564, and 556, respectively.

Hong Kong had the second-highest score in reading with an average of 527. Canada’s 15-year-old students garnered the same average score as well. Finland, Ireland, Estonia, South Korea, Japan, Norway, and New Zealand complete the top 10.

Macau, Chinese Taipei, and Japan follow behind Singapore in mathematics. In the field of science, Japan, Estonia, Chinese Taipei, and Finland make up the top five with Singapore.

Lowest-Ranking Countries

The Philippines, which joined PISA for the first time in 2018, had the lowest average scores. The participating students from the country’s private and public schools scored 340 in reading, 353 in mathematics, and 357 in science. The archipelago’s Department of Education (2019) released an official statement that confirmed the 2018 PISA results echoed the country’s own national assessment.

In the 2018 assessment, the Dominican Republic became the second-lowest instead. Furthermore, in the 2015 international academic evaluation, Lebanon had the lowest average score in reading with 347 points. The Dominican Republic had an average of 328, the lowest in the field of mathematics. And in the subject of science, the Caribbean country also trailed behind other countries with an average score of 332.

What policy interventions can drive educational excellence in the U.S.?

Recent analyses indicate that targeted, evidence-based policy measures can help bridge performance gaps and strengthen learning outcomes. Initiatives such as enhanced teacher professional development, strategic curriculum reforms, and early intervention programs have shown promise in elevating academic achievement without repeating prior assessment results. These efforts are best pursued by aligning local educational strategies with international best practices, ensuring resources are efficiently allocated to support both high-need and high-potential student populations.

Moreover, fostering partnerships between public education systems and specialized institutions can diversify learning opportunities. For instance, collaboration with institutions like military friendly colleges can offer alternative educational pathways that emphasize discipline, technology integration, and career readiness. Such cross-sector initiatives not only support student success within traditional academic frameworks but also prepare learners for diverse roles in a rapidly evolving workforce.

How Can Online Learning Enhance Educational Outcomes?

The increasing integration of digital platforms into education offers opportunities to address gaps that standardized assessments may overlook. Emerging online learning models utilize adaptive technologies to tailor educational experiences to individual student needs, fostering skills that extend beyond traditional academic benchmarks. Moreover, flexible study options contribute to continuous professional development and lifelong learning, allowing career-focused individuals to upskill without disrupting their work schedules. For example, institutions providing the best online degree programs for working adults deliver education models that promote agility and innovation, complementing existing assessment systems while preparing students for a dynamic global workforce.

Can Accelerated Master's Programs Enhance Educational Leadership?

Advanced degree programs that are designed for rapid completion offer educators a pathway to acquire specialized leadership and instructional skills essential for driving reforms. These initiatives empower academic professionals to implement innovative teaching methodologies that address performance gaps highlighted in international assessments. Integrating accelerated training with ongoing professional development can foster a dynamic environment where evidence-based practices are rapidly adopted, benefiting schools across diverse socioeconomic contexts. Institutions offering 6-month master's degree programs provide a model for achieving high-quality, timely skill advancement without compromising academic standards.

Can Fast-Track Degree Programs Foster Educational Innovation and Student Success?

Accelerated education programs present an opportunity to rapidly equip educators with modern methodologies that address evolving classroom challenges. By adopting streamlined qualifications such as the fast track degree, institutions can foster innovative teaching practices that bridge the gap between classroom instruction and emerging workforce needs. This approach not only enhances teacher expertise but also promotes agile policy adaptations and curriculum reforms, contributing to measurable improvements in student outcomes without duplicating existing assessment analyses.

What Changed Between PISA 2018 and PISA 2015?

In the 2015 PISA, Singapore led the pack. That honor went to China B-S-J-Z in 2018. In the previous PISA, Macau, Hong Kong, Estonia, and Japan were also in the top tier of the ranking. However, Japan slipped to 15th place the next time the assessment was held.

The performance of U.S. students in the earlier PISA only landed them in 31st place. Peers like the U.K., France, Sweden, Austria, and Spain were ahead. Indeed, most of the places above the U.S. are dominated by European countries. This is due to the fact the U.S. barely beat the OECD average in reading and science and was 20 points below the average in mathematics.

Out of all the countries that participated, the U.S. ranked 25th in science, 24th in reading, and 40th in mathematics. These are out of the 70 countries that participated (Coughlan, 2016).

These scores showed that U.S. performance has been consistent in science and reading. It is only in mathematics that there had been a significant difference, as trends show a decline (Walker, 2016).

The average scores that students from the U.S. garnered in mathematics in the 2018 PISA reinforced that trend. While the OECD average was 489 on the subject, U.S. learners who took the assessment only had an average score of 478. This puts them 11 points below the standard and in 36th place out of all the 79 participating countries and regions.

In sum, there was no significant statistical change between the 2018 and 2015 PISA scores. Moreover, U.S. PISA scores (particularly for 15-year-old Americans) on all sections have been considerably even since the international test started in 2000 until the present.

Can Short-Duration Master’s Programs Enhance Educational Reform?

Recent advances in educational policy underscore the importance of equipping educators with targeted, practical skills to rapidly implement reforms. Short-duration advanced degree programs provide a concentrated curriculum that merges pedagogical theory with real-world applications, enabling leaders to harness data analytics, innovative curriculum design, and strategic classroom interventions. Such programs can accelerate the diffusion of evidence-based practices across school systems, directly responding to performance gaps highlighted by international and national assessments. For further insights on concise advanced learning opportunities, consider exploring 1 year master degree programs.

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study or TIMMS is a study of the IEA. The project was first held in 1995. It is done every four years to measure students’ academic performance in science and mathematics. Only pupils in the fourth and eighth grades take part in the testing (IEA, n.d.).

The last published results of TIMSS were from the testing done in 2019. At the time, 60 countries took part in the assessment, including the U.S.

The United States

Fourth-graders in the U.S. placed 15th in mathematics with an average of 535, three points behind the Netherlands and two points ahead of the Czech Republic. U.S. students in the eighth grade fared better in the subject: they landed in 12th place, averaging 515, as published by Mullis and colleagues (2020).

According to the same authors, in fourth-grade science, American students did well as they placed ninth with an average score of 539. This means they were 56 points behind the frontrunner, Singapore. Additionally, students from the U.S. were in 11th place in the realm of eighth-grade science with an average of 522 points.

These results show that the fourth- and eighth-graders in the U.S. had higher average scores than many of their peers in mathematics and science. Indeed, the NCES (2020) noted that the U.S. had a large gap between top and bottom performers. This is true for both subjects and grades. Moreover, there is no statistical difference between the average scores of the U.S., Austria, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Flemish Belgium, Quebec, Cyprus, and Finland.

The Rest of the World

Leading the pack in the 2019 TIMSS was Singapore followed by four East Asian countries: Chinese Taipei, South Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong, Boston College (2020) reported. Fourth- and eighth-grade students from these geographical entities were way ahead of their peers in mathematics. However, when it came to science, while they were still strong, the results varied. In fourth grade, Singapore and South Korea were the highest-performing countries. There is then a 21-point difference before the Russian Federation and Japan, followed by Chinese Taipei and Finland. In eighth-grade science, Singapore was still strong and was 34 points ahead of Chinese Taipei, Japan, and South Korea. The Russian Federation and Finland also did well in this area.

However, beyond the test results, the TIMSS report showed that there is a compelling relationship between good behavior and high test scores. STEM Learning (2020) further pointed out that a safe and orderly school environment can greatly contribute to the sharp performance of students in assessments.

National Assessment of Educational Progress

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a national testing project that the NCES holds among students in grades 4, 8, and 12 in selected states and districts. The agency explained that they are tested on their knowledge in mathematics, science, technology and engineering, reading, writing, arts, U.S. history, economics, geography, and civics (NCES, 2020).

The last NAEP in mathematics was held in 2019. That year, grade 4 students earned an average score of 241. Grade 8 students garnered an average score of 282 while the performance of grade 12 students led to an average of 150 only.

Students in the fourth, eighth, and 12th grades had average scores of 154, 154, and 150, respectively, in science. The last NAEP in science was conducted in 2015.

In terms of reading ability, fourth-grade students had a national average of 220. Meanwhile, grade 8 students performed well with an average of 263. Lastly, students in the 12th grade had a high average of 285.

The results of the 2019 NAEP also coincide with the performance of students in PISA 2018. Barshay (2019) pointed out that students achievements in the U.S. have not changed significantly over the past decade. Indeed, low-performing students’ assessment scores have not changed in 30 years.

How do socioeconomic factors influence student performance in the U.S.?

Socioeconomic status (SES) plays a significant role in student academic performance, often contributing to disparities in educational outcomes. While international assessments like PISA and TIMSS provide valuable data on U.S. students' achievements, they often fail to fully capture the impact of socioeconomic factors. Here’s how SES affects academic performance in the U.S.:

• Access to Resources: Students from lower-income families typically have limited access to educational resources such as tutoring, extracurricular activities, and technology. This lack of access can hinder their ability to perform well academically compared to their peers from wealthier backgrounds.
• School Funding Disparities: Schools in low-income areas often receive less funding than those in affluent communities, resulting in larger class sizes, outdated materials, and fewer experienced teachers. These factors contribute to lower academic achievement for students in underfunded schools.
• Parental Involvement: Higher-income families tend to be more involved in their children’s education, providing support for homework and fostering learning environments at home. In contrast, students from lower SES backgrounds may not receive the same level of academic encouragement due to parents’ work obligations or lack of familiarity with the educational system.
• Mental and Emotional Stress: Students from low-income families often face additional stressors, such as food insecurity and housing instability. These challenges can impact their focus and engagement in school, leading to poorer academic outcomes.

How can specialized teacher training boost student performance?

Recent research indicates that focused professional development can significantly enhance teacher effectiveness, which in turn improves student outcomes. Tailored programs that integrate evidence-based practices with modern pedagogical strategies empower educators to address diverse classroom challenges and close achievement gaps. Strategic initiatives that promote continuous learning enable teachers to refine instructional techniques and adapt swiftly to evolving educational needs. For educators considering advanced study as part of their career development, pursuing high paying master's degrees can provide the specialized skills required for impactful teaching and sustained student success.

Can alternative certification programs enhance career readiness?

While standardized assessments provide a benchmark for academic achievement, alternative credentials offer a practical measure of skills that align with current industry demands. Focused training through short-term programs enables individuals to gain specialized competencies that traditional tests may not capture. This approach serves as a complementary pathway to academic evaluations, providing employers with evidence of actionable skill sets and a readiness to perform in dynamic work environments. For example, many professionals are leveraging 6-month certificate programs that pay well to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and on-the-job expertise.

Are Such Tests Significant in Today’s Educational Landscape?

The test results above, particularly that of PISA, show that the performance of U.S. students in subjects like mathematics, science, and reading, when compared to their peers, is only average. Instead, Asian countries like Singapore are moving up the ladder. This is despite the fact that the U.S. spends at least 3.6% of its GDP on public education spending for primary, secondary, and post-secondary non-tertiary education. That makes the country the fourth biggest spender in that arena, after Norway, New Zealand, and the U.K. (Armstrong, 2020). On top of that, many of the education systems around the world mimic or are patterned after the American system.

The results demonstrate that the U.S. needs to step up its policymaking in education to improve teaching standards. The same goes for countries that do poorly in PISA, especially those that have average scores that were below the OECD average. Since the rankings on PISA also correlate to economic wellness, countries can utilize the data to formulate policies that can aid students in preparing better for the future so that they could contribute to their nations’ economies.

Furthermore, the U.S. and other countries can employ data from PISA and other international assessments for benchmarking purposes. By doing so, they could execute reforms that would allow them to reach for the best in education. Thus, they can become more innovative in their teaching methods and be creative in engaging students to learn.

Key Insights

• Importance of International Assessments: Programs like PISA and TIMSS provide crucial benchmarks for comparing student performance globally, offering insights into where countries excel or need improvement.
• US Performance in PISA: In the 2018 PISA, U.S. 15-year-olds scored higher than the OECD average in reading and science but lagged in mathematics. The U.S. ranked 13th overall, showing some improvement since 2015 but still trailing top-performing countries.
• Top Performers: The highest-ranking countries in the 2018 PISA were China (B-S-J-Z), Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong, and Estonia, showcasing strong performance in reading, mathematics, and science.
• Consistent Performance Trends: Despite slight improvements, the U.S. has shown consistent performance levels in PISA since its inception, particularly lagging in mathematics.
• TIMSS Results: In the 2019 TIMSS, U.S. fourth and eighth graders performed well, particularly in science, but still trailed behind top-performing East Asian countries.
• Behavior and Environment: TIMSS data indicates a significant correlation between good behavior, a safe and orderly school environment, and high test scores.
• National Assessment (NAEP): The 2019 NAEP results for U.S. students showed average performance in mathematics and reading, with little significant change over the past decade.
• Educational Spending vs. Results: Despite high spending on education, the U.S. results in international assessments suggest a need for improved educational policies and teaching standards.
• Utilizing Assessment Data: Countries can use data from international assessments to benchmark and implement educational reforms, enhancing teaching methods and student engagement.

FAQ

1. What is the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)? PISA is a cross-national assessment conducted by the OECD to evaluate the reading, mathematics, and science abilities of 15-year-old students. It provides benchmarks for comparing student performance across different countries.
2. How did U.S. students perform in the 2018 PISA? U.S. students scored above the OECD average in reading and science but below average in mathematics. The U.S. ranked 13th overall, with significant improvement since 2015 but still behind top performers like China and Singapore.
3. What are the top-performing countries in the 2018 PISA? The top-performing countries in the 2018 PISA were China (B-S-J-Z), Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong, and Estonia. These countries showed exceptional performance in reading, mathematics, and science.
4. How does the U.S. performance in TIMSS compare to other countries? In the 2019 TIMSS, U.S. fourth and eighth graders performed well, especially in science, but they were outperformed by students from East Asian countries like Singapore, Chinese Taipei, South Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong.
5. What is the significance of the NAEP in the U.S.? The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a national testing program in the U.S. that evaluates students in various subjects, providing insights into the academic performance of students in grades 4, 8, and 12 across the country.
6. Why are international assessments like PISA and TIMSS important? International assessments provide valuable data for benchmarking student performance globally. This data helps countries identify strengths and weaknesses in their education systems and implement necessary reforms to improve teaching and learning outcomes.
7. How can countries use data from international assessments to improve education? Countries can use data from assessments like PISA and TIMSS to benchmark their performance, identify areas for improvement, and implement educational reforms. This can involve enhancing teaching standards, developing innovative teaching methods, and improving student engagement.
8. What is the correlation between educational spending and student performance in the U.S.? Despite being one of the highest spenders on education, the U.S. does not perform as well as expected in international assessments. This suggests that higher spending alone is not sufficient and highlights the need for better educational policies and effective use of resources.

References

• Armstrong, M. (2020, September 8). How much do countries spend on education? Statista.
• Barshay, J. (2020, March 30). What 2018 PISA international rankings tell us about U.S. schools. The Hechinger Report.
• Coughlan, S. (2016, December 6). Singapore first place in school rankings. BBC News.
• DepEd. (2019, December 4). Statement on the Philippines’ Ranking in the 2018 PISA Results. Pasig City, Metro Manila: Department of Education.
• OECD. (2020). United States. Education GPS.
• Heim, J. (2016, December 5). On the world stage, U.S. students fall behind. The Washington Post.
• TIMSS (n.d.). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. The Hague, The Netherlands: IEA.
• Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019: International results in mathematics and science. The Hague, The Netherlands: IEA.
• NCES. (2020, April 16). Assessments. Washington, DC: National Center of Education Statistics.
• NCES. (n.d.). Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) Information for Students. Washington, DC: National Center of Education Statistics.
• PISA. (2015a). Averages for age 15 years PISA reading scale: overall reading, by All students [TOTAL] and jurisdiction: 2015. PISA International Data Explorer. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• PISA. (2015b). Averages for age 15 years PISA mathematics scale: overall mathematics, by All students [TOTAL] and jurisdiction: 2015. PISA International Data Explorer. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• PISA. (2015c). Averages for age 15 years PISA science scale: overall science, by All students [TOTAL] and jurisdiction: 2015. PISA International Data Explorer. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• STEM Learning. (2020, December 9). Latest TIMSS results published. Stem.org.uk.