Country
Data profiles:
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Financial literacy (PISA 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2017) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
Profile View
Select first some countries to compare, choose the charts you wish to display and customise them.
Student performance in reading
The mean score in reading performance is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (520 PISA Score, rank 6/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
Boys' performance in reading is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (495 PISA Score, rank 9/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
Girls' performance in reading is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (546 PISA Score, rank 3/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The difference between girls and boys in reading performance is one of the largest among PISA-participating countries and economies in favour of girls. (52 PISA Score, rank 4/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in reading (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (13.5 %, rank 68/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of top performers in reading (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (14.2 %, rank 5/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of low-performing boys in reading (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (19.6 %, rank 66/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of low-performing girls in reading (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (7.3 %, rank 73/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of top-performing girls in reading (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (19.6 %, rank 3/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The long term change in reading performance over the period of participation of Finland in PISA shows one of the strongest decreases among PISA-participating countries and economies. (-5 PISA Score, rank 26/28 , 2018) Download Indicator
Student performance in mathematics
The percentage of low-performing girls in mathematics (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (13.1 %, rank 68/75 , 2018) Download Indicator
The long term change in maths performance over the period of participation of Finland in PISA shows one of the strongest decreases among PISA-participating countries and economies. (-9 PISA Score, rank 37/37 , 2018) Download Indicator
Student performance in science
The mean score in science performance is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (522 PISA Score, rank 6/75 , 2018) Download Indicator
Girls' performance in science is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (534 PISA Score, rank 4/75 , 2018) Download Indicator
The difference between girls and boys in science performance is one of the largest among PISA-participating countries and economies in favour of girls. (24 PISA Score, rank 5/39 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in science (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (12.9 %, rank 69/75 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of top performers in science (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (12.3 %, rank 5/75 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of top-performing boys in science (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (11.1 %, rank 10/75 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of low-performing girls in science (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (8.9 %, rank 71/75 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of top-performing girls in science (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (13.5 %, rank 3/75 , 2018) Download Indicator
The long term change in science mean performance over the period of participation of Finland in PISA shows one of the strongest decreases among PISA-participating countries and economies. (-11 PISA Score, rank 33/34 , 2018) Download Indicator
Student performance
The percentage of low performers in all subjects (mathematics, reading and science) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (7 %, rank 66/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in at least one subject (among mathematics, reading and science) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (21.6 %, rank 68/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
Participation in education
The percentage of students attending government-independent private schools is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (0 %, rank 70/72 , 2018) Download Indicator
The difference in attendance to pre-primary school between advantaged students and disadvantaged students is one of the smallest among 15-year-old students. (-2.6 % points, rank 7/64 , 2018) Download Indicator
The difference in grade repetition between advantaged students and disadvantaged students is one of the smallest among 15-year-old students. (-1.9 % points, rank 6/69 , 2018) Download Indicator
Financial literacy
The mean score in financial literacy is one of the highest among the countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (537 PISA Score, rank 2/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in financial literacy (below Level 2) is one of the lowest among the countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (9.9 %, rank 16/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of top performers in financial literacy (Level 5) is one of the highest among the countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (19.9 %, rank 1/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
The difference between observed and expected performance in financial literacy based on performance in mathematics and reading is one of the highest among the countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (14 PISA Score, rank 2/18 , 2018) Download Indicator
The performance difference in financial literacy between non-immigrant and immigrant students, after accounting for student socio-economic status is one of the smallest among the countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (-58 PISA Score, rank 11/13 , 2018) Download Indicator
The percentage of students who have a bank account and/or a prepaid debit card is one of the highest among the countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (77.7 %, rank 1/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
Finland has one of the highest standard deviation in performance in financial literacy among the countries and economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (102 PISA Score, rank 2/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
In Finland, the percentage of students who hold an account with a bank, building society, post office or credit union is relatively high compared to the other countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (89.2 %, rank 1/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
The share of students who obtain information about money matters (e.g. spending, saving, banking or investment) from parents, guardians or other adult relations is comparatively large in Finland. (96.9 %, rank 1/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
The proportion of students who bought something on line (alone or with a family member) in the 12 months previous to the assessment is one of the highest among the countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (79.7 %, rank 1/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
In Finland, the share of students who made a payment using a mobile phone in the 12 months previous to the assessment is relatively small compared to the other countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (25.7 %, rank 18/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
In Finland, the percentage of students who enjoy talking about money matters is one of the highest among the countries/economies participating in the PISA financial literacy assessment. (57.5 %, rank 5/19 , 2018) Download Indicator
Classroom environment
The average class-size of 15 year-olds is comparatively small. (19.6 Ratio, rank 72/75 , 2018) Download Indicator
Student well-being
A small proportion of students reported always feeling sad in Finland, compared to other PISA-participating countries and economies. (3.7 %, rank 64/70 , 2018) Download Indicator
Bullying
Compared to other PISA-participating countries and economies, the percentage of students who reported being bullied (includes any type of bullying act) at least a few times a month is one of the lowest. (17.7 %, rank 65/73 , 2018) Download Indicator
Performance and socio-economic status
Among disadvantaged students, the percentage of those who have no clear idea about their future job is one of the largest compared to other countries and economies. (28.8 %, rank 7/76 , 2018) Download Indicator
The difference in reading performance associated to repeating a grade, after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile, is one of the smallest among countires and economies participating in PISA 2018. (-91 PISA Score points, rank 63/70 , 2018) Download Indicator
The reading performance of students in the second lowest international decile of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) scale is among the highest, compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (466 PISA Score, rank 6/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The reading performance of students in the international median of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) scale is among the highest, compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (502 PISA Score, rank 10/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The reading performance of students in the ninth international decile of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) scale is among the highest, compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (552 PISA Score, rank 8/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
The reading performance of students in the top international decile of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) scale is among the highest, compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (566 PISA Score, rank 5/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
Finland has one of the smallest percentage of low performers in reading among socio-economically disadvantaged students. (20.9 %, rank 69/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
Finland has one of the largest percentage of top performers in reading among socio-economically disadvantaged students. (6 %, rank 7/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
Finland has one of the smallest percentage of low performers in reading among socio-economically advantaged students. (6.5 %, rank 69/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
Finland has one of the largest percentage of top performers in reading among socio-economically advantaged students. (25.5 %, rank 5/74 , 2018) Download Indicator
Finland has one of the smallest shares of the variation in reading performance between schools explained by students' and schools' economic, social and cultural status (ESCS). (6.6 %, rank 73/73 , 2018) Download Indicator
Finland has one of the largest shares of the variation in reading performance within schools explained by students' and schools' economic, social and cultural status (ESCS). (92.1 %, rank 8/73 , 2018) Download Indicator
Performance and diversity
After accounting for socio-economic status, the difference in reading performance between immigrant and non-immigrant students is one of the largest among PISA-participating countries and economies, in favour of non-immigrants. (-74 PISA Score, rank 49/52 , 2018) Download Indicator
Resources for education
Finland has one the smallest share of students in schools whose principal agreed or strongly agreed with the statement 'Teachers have the necessary technical and pedagogical skills to integrate digital devices in instruction'. (50.1 %, rank 70/76 , 2018) Download Indicator
Finland has one the largest share of students in schools whose principal agreed or strongly agreed with the statement 'An effective online learning support platform is available'. (80 %, rank 5/76 , 2018) Download Indicator
Teachers' practices
Students in Finland perceived their teachers as being less enthusiastic compared to other PISA-participating countries and economies. (-0.15 PISA Index, rank 65/73 , 2018) Download Indicator
Demographic indicators
The coverage of the national 15-year-old population in PISA 2018 is one the higest among countries and economies participating in PISA. (0.96 Ratio, rank 6/76 , 2018) Download Indicator
General findings
- Reading literacy is defined as students' capacity to understand, use, evaluate, reflect on and engage with texts in order to achieve one's goals, develop one's knowledge and potential, and participate in society.
- Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China) and Singapore scored significantly higher in reading than all other countries/economies that participated in PISA 2018. Estonia, Canada, Finland and Ireland were the highest-performing OECD countries in reading.
- Some 77% of students, on average across OECD countries, attained at least Level 2 proficiency in reading. At a minimum, these students are able to identify the main idea in a text of moderate length, find information based on explicit, though sometimes complex, criteria, and reflect on the purpose and form of texts when explicitly directed to do so. Over 85% of students in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China), Canada, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong (China), Ireland, Macao (China), Poland and Singapore performed at this level or above.
- Around 8.7% of students, on average across OECD countries, were top performers in reading, meaning that they attained Level 5 or 6 in the PISA reading test. At these levels, students are able to comprehend lengthy texts, deal with concepts that are abstract or counterintuitive, and establish distinctions between fact and opinion, based on implicit cues pertaining to the content or source of the information. In 20 education systems, including those of 15 OECD countries, over 10% of 15-year-old students were top performers.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Mathematics literacy is defined as students' capacity to formulate, employ and interpret mathematics in a variety of contexts. It includes reasoning mathematically and using mathematical concepts, procedures, facts and tools to describe, explain and predict phenomena.
- On average across OECD countries, 76% of students attained Level 2 or higher in mathematics. At a minimum, these students can interpret and recognise, without direct instructions, how a (simple) situation can be represented mathematically (e.g. comparing the total distance across two alternative routes, or converting prices into a different currency). However, in 24 countries and economies, more than 50% of students scored below this level of proficiency.
- Around one in six 15-year-old students in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China) (16.5%), and about one in seven students in Singapore (13.8%), scored at Level 6 in mathematics, the highest level of proficiency that PISA describes. These students are capable of advanced mathematical thinking and reasoning. On average across OECD countries, only 2.4% of students scored at this level.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Science literacy is defined as the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen. A scientifically literate person is willing to engage in reasoned discourse about science and technology, which requires the competencies to explain phenomena scientifically, evaluate and design scientific enquiry, and interpret data and evidence scientifically.
- On average across OECD countries, 78% of students attained Level 2 or higher in science. At a minimum, these students can recognise the correct explanation for familiar scientific phenomena and can use such knowledge to identify, in simple cases, whether a conclusion is valid based on the data provided. More than 90% of students in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China) (97.9%), Macao (China) (94.0%), Estonia (91.2%) and Singapore (91.0%) achieved this benchmark.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- In 11 countries and economies, including the OECD countries Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Japan, Korea, Norway and the United Kingdom, average performance was higher than the OECD average while the relationship between socio-economic status and reading performance was weaker than the OECD average.
- In spite of socio-economic disadvantage, some students attain high levels of academic proficiency. On average across OECD countries, one in ten disadvantaged students was able to score in the top quarter of reading performance in their countries (known as academic resilience), indicating that disadvantage is not destiny. In Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hong-Kong (China), Ireland, Macao (China) and the United Kingdom, all of which score above the OECD average, more than 13% of disadvantaged students were academically resilient.
- In all countries and economies that participated in PISA 2018, girls significantly outperformed boys in reading - by 30 score points, on average across OECD countries. The narrowest gender gaps (less than 20 score points) were observed in Argentina, Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China), Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama and Peru; the widest (more than 50 score points) were observed in Finland, Jordan, the Republic of North Macedonia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Co-operation amongst students was more prevalent than competition, on average across OECD countries in 2018. Some 62% of students reported that students co-operate with each other while only 50% of students reported that their schoolmates compete with each other.
- Some 23% of students reported being bullied at least a few times a month, on average across OECD countries.
- Some 88% of students across OECD countries agreed that it is a good thing to help students who cannot defend themselves and it is wrong to join in bullying. Girls and students who were not frequently bullied were more likely to report stronger anti-bullying attitudes than boys and frequently bullied students.
- On average across OECD countries, 21% of students had skipped a day of school and 48% of students had arrived late for school in the two weeks prior to the PISA test. In Georgia, Montenegro, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, at least one in five students had skipped school at least three times during that period.
- On average across OECD countries, 67% of students reported being satisfied with their lives (students who reported between 7 and 10 on the 10-point life-satisfaction scale). Between 2015 and 2018, the share of satisfied students shrank by 5 percentage points.
- In a majority of school systems, students who expressed a greater fear of failure scored higher in reading, but reported less satisfaction with life, than students expressing less concern about failing, after accounting for the socio-economic profile of students and schools.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Financial literacy is defined as the knowledge and understanding of financial concepts and risks, and the skills, motivation and confidence to apply such knowledge and understanding in order to make effective decisions across a range of financial contexts, to improve the financial well-being of individuals and society, and to enable participation in economic life.
- The highest average financial literacy performance is found in Estonia, followed by the Canadian provinces and Finland.
- Some 85% of students, on average across OECD countries/economies, attained at least Level 2 proficiency in financial literacy. These students can apply their knowledge of common financial products and financial terms and can recognise the value of a simple budget. However, in five partner countries, more than one in three students did not attain Level 2 proficiency.
- Some 10% of students attained the highest level (Level 5) of proficiency in financial literacy, on average across OECD countries/economies. These students can analyse complex financial products and documents. Almost one in five students in Estonia and Finland displayed Level 5 proficiency.
- Boys scored a small but significant 2 points higher than girls in the PISA 2018 financial literacy assessment, on average across OECD countries/economies. After accounting for performance in mathematics and reading, boys outperformed girls by 10 points.
- Socio-economically advantaged students performed better in financial literacy than disadvantaged students - by roughly one proficiency level, on average across OECD countries/economies.
- Immigrant students scored 30 points lower than non-immigrant students, on average across OECD countries/economies. However, after accounting for performance in reading and maths, immigrant students scored only five points below non-immigrant students.
- Some 94% of students reported obtaining information about money matters from parents, guardians and other adult relations, on average across OECD countries/economies.
- On average across OECD countries/economies, 54% of students held an account at a bank, building society, post office or credit union, and 45% of students held a payment card or a debit card. Students in Australia, the Canadian provinces, Estonia and Finland were particularly likely to hold such products, the oposite was found in Brazil, Peru and Serbia.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- On average across OECD countries, 6% of students had not attended or had attended pre-primary education for less than one year. These students scored lower in reading at the age of 15 than students who had attended for between one and three years, before and after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile.
- A socio-economically disadvantaged 15-year-old student was about three times more likely than an advantaged student, on average across OECD countries, to have repeated a grade at least once, even if both students scored the same in the PISA reading test.
- On average across OECD countries, students in schools that group students by ability in their classes for all subjects scored eight points lower in reading than students in schools that do not group students in this way, after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile.
- After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile, students in public schools scored higher in reading than students in private schools, on average across OECD countries (by 14 score points) and in 19 education systems (ranging from 13 score points higher in Indonesia to 117 points higher in Serbia).
- Some 28% of students were enrolled in schools whose principal reported that learning is hindered by a lack of teaching staff, and 33% were enrolled in schools whose principal reported that learning is hindered by a lack of assisting staff, on average across OECD countries.
- Students attending schools whose principal reported fewer shortages of material resources scored higher in reading, on average across OECD countries and in 12 countries and economies, after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile. At the system level, more shortages of educational materials were correlated with lower mean performance in reading, even after accounting for per capita GDP, across OECD countries, and across participating countries and economies in PISA 2018.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Global competence is defined as a multidimensional capacity that encompasses the ability to: 1) examine issues of local, global and cultural significance; 2) understand and appreciate the perspectives and worldviews of others; 3) engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions across cultures; and 4) take action for collective well-being and sustainable development.
- Students in Albania, Greece, Lithuania, Malta and the United Arab Emirates reported the highest levels of awareness of global issues, while students in Argentina, Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Romania, Saudi Arabia and Viet Nam reported the lowest levels of awareness.
- Students in Albania, Kosovo, Lebanon, North Macedonia and Turkey reported the greatest capacity for perspective taking, while those in Colombia, France, Italy, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic showed the least.
- Students in Albania, the Dominican Republic, Kosovo, the Philippines and Turkey showed the greatest interest in learning about other cultures among the 64 countries and economies that had non-missing data.
- Students in Albania, Canada, Korea, Portugal and Spain reported the most positive attitudes towards immigrants, with values in the index that were significantly higher than the OECD average. The least positive attitudes were observed in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and the Slovak Republic.
- On average across OECD countries, only 12% of students reported that they do not learn any foreign language at school, while 38% reported that they learn one foreign language and 50% reported that they learn two or more.
- Students in Albania, Costa Rica, Korea, Portugal and Singapore reported the highest levels of agency regarding global issues. The lowest levels were observed in Germany, Hungary, Latvia, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic.
- On average across OECD countries, students reported engaging in about five learning activities linked to global competences.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
All rankings for individual variables are compiled on the basis of OECD and G20 countries for which data are available. The OECD average includes only OECD countries which are listed here: http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/
Reference years displayed in the Education GPS correspond to the most common year of reference among countries for which data is available on each variable. Data for the latest available year is preferred and some countries may have provided data refering to a more recent or late year. To know more about possible exceptions on data please click on the "Download Indicator" link on each variable. When a year of reference corresponds to a school year encompassing two years, the reference reads as follows: 2018 for school year 2017/2018.
*TALIS averages are based on all countries participating in the TALIS survey, including partner countries and economies. This explains the difference between the OECD average and the TALIS averages. Data from the TALIS survey and Education at a Glance (EAG) may differ. See Annex E of the TALIS technical report and Annex 3 of EAG 2021 for more details about the data collections.
B-S-J-Z (China) refers to the four PISA-participating provinces/municipalities of the People's Republic of China: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang.
For additional notes, please refer to annexes in the list of links below the introductory country profile text.