Philippines
Country overview
Select a country to explore its education data and publications.
Interactive data profiles
Explore education indicators through the available country profiles.
Country reports and publications
View all reportsRead the latest OECD country notes, reviews and analysis.
Philippines
Student performance (PISA 2025)
| PISA 2025 | Country Note | PISA Dashboard | PISA 2025 Assessment and Analytical Framework | PISA Database | Important note on countries |
Select first some countries to compare, choose the charts you wish to display and customise them.
The following list displays indicators for which your selected country shows the highest and lowest values among countries.
The list can be sorted by level of education or by age group. All rankings are calculated including available data from OECD
and partner countries.
Find out more about the methodology here.
Show indicators for which your country ranks among the top or bottom:
Sort by:
Student performance in mathematics
The change in maths performance between 2022 and 2025 shows one of the largest increases among PISA-participating countries and economies. (16 PISA Score points, rank 5/46 , 2025) Download Indicator
Student performance in reading
The average change in reading performance between 2022 and 2025 shows one of the strongest increases among PISA-participating countries and economies. (20 PISA Score points, rank 1/50 , 2025) Download Indicator
Student performance in computational problem solving
In Philippines, the share of students scoring higher than expected in computational problem-solving based on their performance in science was among the largest across countries with available data. (74.6 %, rank 3/84 , 2025) Download Indicator
Performance and diversity
After accounting for socio-economic status, the difference in mathematics performance between non-immigrant and immigrant students is one of the largest among PISA-participating countries and economies, in favour of immigrants. (-77 PISA Score, rank 63/65 , 2025) Download Indicator
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. (-118 PISA Score, rank 71/71 , 2025) Download Indicator
After accounting for socio-economic status, the difference in science performance between non-immigrant and immigrant students is one of the largest among PISA-participating countries and economies, in favour of immigrants . (-107 PISA Score, rank 70/71 , 2025) Download Indicator
Student well-being
In 2025, the index of sense of belonging was one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (-0.29 PISA Index, rank 80/82 , 2025) Download Indicator
Bullying
In 2025, the index of exposure to bullying was one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (0.7 PISA Index, rank 3/88 , 2025) Download Indicator
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 highest. (47.2 %, rank 3/89 , 2025) Download Indicator
Philippines had one of the largest shares of students who reported being cyberbullied (information about them that was upsetting were published online without their consent). (13.9 %, rank 2/86 , 2025) Download Indicator
Students' engagement, drive and self-beliefs
Philippines had one of the smallest shares of students who disagree that intelligence is something about you that you cannot change very much. (44.2 %, rank 83/87 , 2025) Download Indicator
Philippines had one of the smallest shares of students who disagree that school has done little to prepare them for adult life when they leave school. (32.6 %, rank 86/87 , 2025) Download Indicator
The share of students who agreed or strongly agreed that they finish what they start was among the largest in Philippines compared with other countries with available data. (76.1 %, rank 3/87 , 2025) Download Indicator
In Philippines, the share of students who agreed or strongly agreed that they apply additional effort when work becomes challenging was among the largest across countries with available data. (78.1 %, rank 4/87 , 2025) Download Indicator
Students’ use of artificial intelligence for schoolwork
Philippines had one of the smallest shares of students who do not use artificial intelligence for schoolwork. (4.8 %, rank 78/82 , 2025) Download Indicator
Philippines had one of the smallest shares of students who do not use artificial intelligence to summarise assigned reading texts. (14.2 %, rank 80/82 , 2025) Download Indicator
The data table will display up to six selected countries.
General findings
- B-S-J-Z (China) and Singapore were the two highest-performing systems across science, mathematics and reading in PISA 2025. Additionally, Estonia, Japan, Korea, Macao (China), Chinese Taipei and the United Kingdom were among the top-10 performing education systems in all three domains.
- PISA 2025 recorded the lowest OECD-average performance observed so far in science, reading and mathematics. Reading declined after peaking around 2012, science declined more gradually over the past decade, and mathematics fell especially sharply after 2018.
- Around three-quarters of students demonstrated at least baseline proficiency in science: they pass from knowing some science to using science at a basic level.
- Socio-economic background remains strongly associated with student achievement, accounting for 12% of within-country variation in science performance.
- Students reported more teacher support in science lessons compared to 2015 in about half of countries/economies. Teacher support remains positively associated with science performance and learning attitudes.
- The provision of study help such as peer-to-peer tutoring is associated with higher science performance.
Visualisations
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Socio-economic background remains strongly associated with student achievement, accounting for 12% of within-country variation in science performance.
- Gender differences in performance in mathematics and reading are still remarquable, as for all previous PISA studies. Boys still perform better than girls in mathematics by 13 PISA score points while girls outperform boys in reading by 30 PISA score points in 2025, on average accross OECD countries. In science, girls perform almost as well as boys by only 1 score point difference.
- Some education systems, such as B-S-J-Z (China), Canada, Estonia, Ireland, Japan, Korea and Macao (China), achieved both socio-economic fairness and strong performance.
- Between 2022 and 2025, narrowing of socio-economic gaps in performance largely reflected declines among advantaged students rather than improvements among disadvantaged students.
- Two out of three students perceive social mobility as achievable, rising to 75% or more in Portugal and Israel.
- Girls generally reported higher levels of curiosity, perseverance, help seeking, goal setting a growth mindset, while boys tend to report higher cognitive adaptability.
Visualisations
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Some 69% of students reported that they like learning new things and 74% reported that they like to know how things work.
- While 61% of students reported finishing what they start and 60% reported putting in extra effort when work becomes challenging, 52% reported finishing tasks they have started even when they become boring.
- Girls generally reported higher levels of curiosity, perseverance, help seeking, goal setting a growth mindset, while boys tend to report higher cognitive adaptability.
- Between 2022 and 2025 students' self-reported curiosity and perseverance declined.
- Most students feel they belong at school (76%) and make friends easily (80%), and believe their peers like them (83%).
- While 67% of students believe that school has taught them things that could be useful in a job, 49% reported that school has done little to prepare them for adult life, 24% viewed school has been a waste of time.
- Bullying is associated with lower student performance and sense of belonging even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profiles.
| Education policies: Student engagement and motivation | Education policies: Students' Well-Being | OECD Better Life Index |
Visualisations
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
- On average, 79% of students use AI chatbots to help them to learn, including 26% weekly and 19% almost daily or more.
- The relationship between AI use and science performance is complex. Students who frequently use AI for learning and learn to assess the quality of AI-generated information at school achieve higher science performance than non- or infrequent users. However, advantaged students have greater access to these opportunities, raising concerns about an AI divide.
- Moderate use of digital devices for learning at school relates to higher science performance than no or heavy use. However, more than one hour of leisure use at school is linked to lower performance.
- Some 28% of students reported that their peers are distracted by the use of digital devices during most or every science lesson. Cell-phone bans or subject-specific guidelines relate to less distraction and less time spent on digital devices at school, but their relationship with performance remains unclear.
- Almost half of 15 year old students are in schools where the use of cell phones is not allowed on the school premises.
| Education policies: Student outcomes | Education policies: Learning environment | Education policies: Digital Divide |
Visualisations
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
- About three in four students achieve at least baseline proficiency (Level 2) in environmental science.
- Higher-performing students tend to report stronger environmental awareness, personal agency and collective efficacy.
- Caring for the environment is widespread: 75% of students reported looking after the global environment is important to them; it is over 90% in B-S-J-Z (China), Indonesia, Korea and Cambodia.
- Most students believe collective action (82%) and individual action (81%) can address environmental challenges, though fewer know how to collaborate effectively (68%).
- On average, 28% of students never participated in any of the five environmental activities examined. Among them, 56% do not know anyone engaged in environmental actions, 49% believe others will address the problem and 47% feel their actions would not make a difference.
- On average, 62% of students are interested in contributing to environmental protection through their future careers, particularly girls, socio-economically advantaged students, higher performing students and students with pro-environmental attitudes.
Visualisations
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click the arrow sign next to the title:
to display other variables
to display other variables
Click on the diagram to get a PDF version
Click on the coverpage to see the full OECD iLibrary version
Note: These values should be interpreted with care since they are influenced by countries' specific contexts and trade-offs. In education, there is often no simple
most- or least-efficient model. For instance, the share of private expenditure in education must be read against other measures designed to mitigate inequities,
such as loans and grants; longer learning time is an opportunity to convey more and better content to students, but may hinder investments in other important
areas. If you want further information on the nature of different variables, please take the time to read the analysis and contextual information, available at the website
for each publication.
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: https://www.oecd.org/en/about/members-partners.html
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. However, OECD averages from Education at a Glance coming from the OECD database are the averages for the indicator reference year appearing in the Education GPS and may differ from averages in the book where averages can include data from multiple reference years, based on countries' data availability.
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: 2026 for school year 2025/2026 in the Northern Hemisphere.
*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 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes of EAG 2025 for more details about the data collections.
For additional notes, please refer to annexes in the list of links below the introductory country profile text.
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: https://www.oecd.org/en/about/members-partners.html
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. However, OECD averages from Education at a Glance coming from the OECD database are the averages for the indicator reference year appearing in the Education GPS and may differ from averages in the book where averages can include data from multiple reference years, based on countries' data availability.
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: 2026 for school year 2025/2026 in the Northern Hemisphere.
*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 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes of EAG 2025 for more details about the data collections.
For additional notes, please refer to annexes in the list of links below the introductory country profile text.