Results from the latest worldwide survey of reading, math and science skills among 15-year-old students have attracted widespread attention for the lowest global scores in the survey’s history.
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is widely considered the most important international benchmark for student achievement. It has been administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) every three years since 2000 and has been likened to the Olympics of education.
The most recent survey in 2025 included 83 countries and eight distinct economies. Students were tested in the three traditional core subjects as well, for the first time, in computational problem-solving.
In the coming weeks and months, Canadian and international policymakers will no doubt be discussing overall improvements in their relative rankings or lamenting significant performance declines.
One might naturally wonder how Canada performs relative to the rest of the world and do these results warrant the attention they receive? Perhaps, more importantly, what role — if any — should PISA results have in shaping provincial education policies?
Canadian results
The most recent PISA results are the lowest scores (p. 3) ever recorded in Canada and are significantly below mean-scaled results from a decade earlier. Note, however, that these performance patterns are part of a larger global trend.
The table below depicts the average Canadian scaled scores in the last three surveys. The OECD averages are in brackets. Computational problem-solving appears for the first time.
A difference of 20 points is roughly equivalent to one grade level. In practical terms, that means the average Canadian 15-year-old is roughly one grade level above same-age peers in mathematics and almost a grade-and-a-half ahead in reading.
Canadian students are still achieving above average compared with their OECD counterparts in all test areas. Yet critics will point out that Canada’s relative standing globally continues to drop. Canadian students rank ninth in science, 11th in math and 12th in reading literacy.
The picture becomes more complex when we consider reported differences across provincial jurisdictions. The table below provides the scaled PISA 2025 scores for each province with its ranking in brackets. The Canadian and OECD means are along the bottom.
The media and policymakers have historically focused on these rankings in public policy debates and have portrayed declining PISA scores as evidence of a failing education system. It needs to be made clear, however, that much of these ranking differences are largely insignificant and partly explained by measurement errors. The OECD notes that caution is required when interpreting results in seven provincial jurisdictions, including Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec, because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met.
Unsurprisingly, and similar to previous PISA assessments, the current Canadian results indicate significant differences in education across the provinces. Indeed, the difference between the highest (Alberta) and lowest (New Brunswick) performing provincial jurisdiction in science is more than two grade levels.
It remains to be seen if this notation in a 375-page report is considered when provincial legislatures convene to discuss these results. Unfortunately, despite the warning that results are not absolute, they are often politicized and used strategically as a policy lever in Canada.
PISA policy debate
The OECD suggests that PISA and related projects provide compelling evidence that countries with high scores can help others reform their education frameworks with new purposes, policies and practices. The tagline that has accompanied the OECD PISA homepage for much of its history is “better policies for better lives.”
But the relationship between PISA and policy development, as well as the rhetoric surrounding policy borrowing, is particularly contentious. One high-profile critique came in the form of an open letter published in the Guardian wherein more than 80 international scholars offered a long list of what they saw as problems with PISA testing.
Chief concerns were that PISA has resulted in more standardized testing, increasingly emphasized a narrow range of measurable skills and led countries to focus on short-term education fixes to help them climb in the rankings. Although this letter is more than 10 years old, these criticisms, as well as others, are repeatedly cited in contemporary academic literature.
Impact of PISA
It is too early to comment on the impact that PISA 2025 results may have on specific provincial education systems. But it will be important for provincial policymakers to avoid cherry-picking from the results to advance their political agendas.
For example, if greater schooling options and more standardized testing are the logical solutions for an ailing education system, then the United States, not Finland, would have been ranked at the top for much of the PISA survey’s history. As Pasi Sahlberg, a noted Finish academic argued, there are many things the U.S can’t learn from Finnish success given the “American obsession with standardized testing.”
Universities need new ways to assess learning in the age of AI
Before schools embrace AI, Canada must protect children’s learning
My research examining education around the world suggests policies that balance cognitive (achievement in traditional content) and non-cognitive (mental health, sense of belonging, growth mindset) outcomes tend to support a more resilient student body.
The promotion of non-cognitive skills – which do not garner the same status or attention as achievement in the three Rs – is important for long-term health and employment earnings. Research suggests that these two areas are interrelated and significantly influence each other.
Pieces, pictures and perspectives
The OECD is shifting to a four-year testing cycle. The next PISA assessment is scheduled for 2029 and is to include media and artificial intelligence literacy. It is important to remember that these results are a small piece of a much larger picture of education quality.
Decision-makers should be skeptical about reworking education policies to try to replicate the success of more high-performing countries. Unlike the Olympics, student achievement data every four years is ill-suited to making timely decisions around teaching and learning in contemporary school settings.
Ultimately, provincial education systems possess unique student characteristics and curriculums, which are all measured against locally developed assessment programs. These evaluations are more sensitive to instructional practices in schools than a test designed for 90-plus countries and economies around the world.
A PISA survey provides useful data for the future – particularly in relation to how cognitive and non-cognitive learning outcomes interact. But it should not be the primary lever to drive education reforms nationally or provincially. Putting PISA in perspective is as important as the results if we want to build nimble and resilient education across the country.
