PISA 2018 Results (Volume II)

Executive Summary

The principle that every person has a fair chance to improve his or her life, whatever his or her personal circumstances, lies at the heart of democratic political and economic institutions. Ensuring that all students have access to the best education opportunities is also a way of using resources effectively, and of improving education and social outcomes in general.

Equity in education is a central and long-standing focus of PISA and a major concern of countries around the world. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 advocate for “ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all” (United Nations, 2015).

Equity does not mean that all students have equal outcomes; rather it means that whatever variations there may be in education outcomes, they are not related to students’ background, including socio-economic status, gender or immigrant background.

PISA measures equity by whether education outcomes, such as access to schooling, student performance, students’ attitudes and beliefs, and students’ expectations for their future, are related to student’s personal background. The weaker the relationship, the more equitable the school system, as all students can flourish in such a system, regardless of their background.

Where all students can succeed: Main findings

Equity related to socio-economic status

• 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.

• Disadvantaged students are more or less likely to attend the same schools as high achievers, depending on the school system. In Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg, Peru, Romania, the Slovak Republic, the United Arab Emirates and Switzerland, a typical disadvantaged student has less than a one-in-eight chance of attending the same school as high achievers (those who scored in the top quarter of reading performance in PISA. By contrast, in Baku (Azerbaijan), Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Kosovo, Macao (China), Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, disadvantaged students have at least a one-in-five chance of having high-achieving schoolmates.

• On average across OECD countries, 40% of teachers in disadvantaged schools compared with 48% of teachers in advantaged schools had at least a master’s degree.

• In 42 countries and economies, principals of disadvantaged schools were significantly more likely than those of advantaged schools to report that their school’s capacity to provide instruction is hindered by a shortage of education staff. In 46 countries and economies, principals of disadvantaged schools were also more likely to report that a lack or inadequacy of educational material and physical infrastructure hinders instruction.

• Many students, especially disadvantaged students, hold lower ambitions than would be expected given their academic achievement. On average across OECD countries, only seven in ten high-achieving disadvantaged students reported that they expect to complete tertiary education, while nine in ten high-achieving advantaged students reported so. In Austria, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, the Republic of Moldova, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland, the difference between the two groups was larger than 25 percentage points.

• On average across OECD countries, more than two in five disadvantaged students reported that they do not know how to find information about student financing (e.g. student loans or grants).

Equity related to gender

• 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.

• In Estonia, Ireland, Macao (China), Peru and Singapore, the gender gap in reading performance narrowed between 2009 and 2018; and both boys and girls scored higher in 2018 than their counterparts did in 2009.

• Boys outperformed girls – by five score points – in mathematics, on average across OECD countries, but girls outperformed boys in science by two score points. While boys significantly outperformed girls in mathematics in 31 countries and economies, in 12 countries/economies the opposite pattern was observed. Only in Argentina, Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China), Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru did boys significantly outperform girls in science, while the opposite was true in 34 countries and economies.

• In all countries and economies, girls reported much greater enjoyment of reading than boys. The largest gender gap in enjoyment of reading was observed in Germany, Hungary and Italy and the smallest in Indonesia and Korea. On average across OECD countries in 2018, both boys and girls reported significantly less enjoyment of reading than their counterparts did in 2009.

• Only 1% of girls, on average across OECD countries, reported that they want to work in ICT-related occupations, compared with 8% of boys who so reported. In some countries, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia and Ukraine, more than 15% of boys reported that they expect to work in an ICT-related profession; but in no PISA-participating country or economy did more than 3% of girls report so.

Equity related to immigrant background

• On average across OECD countries, 13% of students in 2018 had an immigrant background, up from 10% in 2009. In most countries, immigrant students tended to be socio-economically disadvantaged; in Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden, at least two out of five immigrant students were disadvantaged.

• Some 17% of immigrant students scored in the top quarter of reading performance in the country where they sat the PISA test, on average across OECD countries. In Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Panama, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, more than 30% of immigrant students performed at that level.

• In 21 out of the 43 countries and economies where a relatively large proportion of students had an immigrant background, immigrant students were more likely than their native-born peers to report a goal-oriented attitude.

Table II.1 [1/2]. Snapshot of socio-economic disparities in academic performance

		Countries/economies with a mean performance/strength of socio-economic gradient/share of resilient students above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean performance/strength of socio-economic gradient/share of resilient students not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean performance/strength of socio-economic gradient/share of resilient students below the OECD average
	Mean reading score in PISA 2018	Coverage Index 3: Coverage of 15-year-old population	Strength: Percentage of variance in reading performance explained by ESCS1 (R2)	Difference between advantaged2 and disadvantaged students in reading	Percentage of disadvantaged students who are academically resilient3
	Mean		%	Score dif.	%
OECD average	487	m	12.0	89	11
B-S-J-Z (China)	555	0.81	12.6	82	12
Singapore	549	0.95	13.2	104	10
Macao (China)	525	0.88	1.7	31	20
Hong Kong (China)	524	0.98	5.1	59	16
Estonia	523	0.93	6.2	61	16
Canada	520	0.86	6.7	68	14
Finland	520	0.96	9.2	79	13
Ireland	518	0.96	10.7	75	13
Korea	514	0.88	8.0	75	13
Poland	512	0.90	11.6	90	11
Sweden	506	0.86	10.7	89	11
New Zealand	506	0.89	12.9	96	12
United States	505	0.86	12.0	99	10
United Kingdom	504	0.85	9.3	80	14
Japan	504	0.91	8.0	72	12
Australia	503	0.89	10.1	89	13
Chinese Taipei	503	0.92	11.4	89	12
Denmark	501	0.88	9.9	78	12
Norway	499	0.91	7.5	73	12
Germany	498	0.99	17.2	113	10
Slovenia	495	0.98	12.1	80	12
Belgium	493	0.94	17.2	109	9
France	493	0.91	17.5	107	10
Portugal	492	0.87	13.5	95	10
Czech Republic	490	0.95	16.5	105	9
Netherlands	485	0.91	10.5	88	13
Austria	484	0.89	13.0	93	10
Switzerland	484	0.89	15.6	104	9
Croatia	479	0.89	7.7	63	15
Latvia	479	0.89	7.2	65	12
Russia	479	0.94	7.3	67	13
Italy	476	0.85	8.9	75	12
Hungary	476	0.90	19.1	113	8
Lithuania	476	0.90	13.2	89	11
Iceland	474	0.92	6.6	72	13
Belarus	474	0.88	19.8	102	9
Israel	470	0.81	14.0	121	8
Luxembourg	470	0.87	17.8	122	8
Ukraine	466	0.87	14.0	90	12
Turkey	466	0.73	11.4	76	15
Slovak Republic	458	0.86	17.5	106	9
Greece	457	0.93	10.9	84	12

1. ESCS refers to the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status.

2. A socio-economically advantaged (disadvantaged) student is a student in the top (bottom) quarter of ESCS in his or her own country/economy.

3. Academically resilient students are disadvantaged students who scored in the top quarter of performance in reading amongst students in their own country.

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the mean reading score in PISA 2018.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables I.B1.10, II.B1.2.1, II.B1.2.3 and Table II.B1.3.1.

Statlink

Table II.1 [2/2]. Snapshot of socio-economic disparities in academic performance

		Countries/economies with a mean performance/strength of socio-economic gradient/share of resilient students above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean performance/strength of socio-economic gradient/share of resilient students not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean performance/strength of socio-economic gradient/share of resilient students below the OECD average
	Mean reading score in PISA 2018	Coverage Index 3: Coverage of 15-year-old population	Strength: Percentage of variance in reading performance explained by ESCS1 (R2)	Difference between advantaged2 and disadvantaged students in reading	Percentage of disadvantaged students who are academically resilient3
	Mean		%	Score dif.	%
Chile	452	0.89	12.7	87	11
Malta	448	0.97	7.6	85	13
Serbia	439	0.88	7.8	73	13
United Arab Emirates	432	0.92	11.1	105	7
Romania	428	0.71	18.1	109	9
Uruguay	427	0.77	16.0	99	9
Costa Rica	426	0.63	15.6	83	10
Cyprus	424	0.92	6.8	69	13
Moldova	424	0.95	17.3	102	8
Montenegro	421	0.95	5.8	55	14
Mexico	420	0.66	13.7	81	11
Bulgaria	420	0.72	15.0	106	6
Jordan	419	0.57	7.7	64	12
Malaysia	415	0.72	16.3	89	10
Brazil	413	0.56	14.0	97	10
Colombia	412	0.62	13.7	86	10
Brunei Darussalam	408	0.97	16.0	103	9
Qatar	407	0.92	8.6	93	9
Albania	405	0.46	7.8	61	12
Bosnia and Herzegovina	403	0.82	7.3	58	13
Argentina	402	0.81	17.1	102	8
Peru	401	0.73	21.5	110	6
Saudi Arabia	399	0.85	11.5	74	11
Thailand	393	0.72	12.0	69	13
North Macedonia	393	0.95	10.2	80	13
Baku (Azerbaijan)	389	0.46	4.3	41	17
Kazakhstan	387	0.92	4.3	40	16
Georgia	380	0.83	9.4	68	12
Panama	377	0.53	17.0	95	9
Indonesia	371	0.85	7.8	52	14
Morocco	359	0.64	7.1	51	13
Lebanon	353	0.87	12.2	103	9
Kosovo	353	0.84	4.9	40	17
Dominican Republic	342	0.73	8.9	65	12
Philippines	340	0.68	18.0	88	8
Spain	m	0.92	m	m	m

1. ESCS refers to the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status.

2. A socio-economically advantaged (disadvantaged) student is a student in the top (bottom) quarter of ESCS in his or her own country/economy.

3. Academically resilient students are disadvantaged students who scored in the top quarter of performance in reading amongst students in their own country.

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the mean reading score in PISA 2018.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables I.B1.10, II.B1.2.1, II.B1.2.3 and Table II.B1.3.1.

Statlink

Table II.2 [1/2]. Snapshot of expectations for the future, by gender and socio-economic status

		Countries/economies with share of top performers who do not expect to complete tertiary education below the OECD average or a share of top performers who expect to work in STEM occupations above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a share of students not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with share of top performers who do not expect to complete tertiary education above the OECD average or a share of top performers who expect to work in STEM occupations below the OECD average
	Percentage of students who do not expect to complete tertiary education amongst those who have attained at least minimum academic proficiency (Level 2) in the three core PISA subjects and are high performers (Level 4) in at least one subject			Percentage of top performers in science or mathematics who expect to work as …
				… science and engineering professionals when they are 30			… health professionals when they are 30
	Advantaged students	Disadvantaged students	Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys
	%	%	% dif.	%	%	% dif.	%	%	% dif.
OECD average	7.9	28.4	-20.3	26.0	14.5	-11.5	12.3	29.9	17.4
Germany	27.1	66.0	-38.9	22.6	12.4	-10.2	6.3	23.7	17.4
Poland	8.4	47.0	-38.5	14.0	11.9	-2.1	10.8	30.4	19.6
Hungary	7.8	46.0	-38.3	26.7	16.5	-10.1	10.3	23.1	12.8
Finland	13.5	43.5	-30.1	11.6	9.1	-2.5	15.2	35.9	20.7
New Zealand	12.1	41.7	-29.6	26.4	14.3	-12.1	14.8	35.1	20.3
Switzerland	15.4	44.9	-29.5	23.8	11.2	-12.6	8.9	27.1	18.2
Austria	20.8	50.2	-29.4	20.3	8.9	-11.4	10.7	24.5	13.8
Latvia	8.6	37.7	-29.1	20.4	12.2	-8.3	9.2	24.9	15.7
Italy	11.7	40.5	-28.9	26.0	12.5	-13.6	10.7	22.7	12.0
Norway	7.1	35.4	-28.3	32.7	11.6	-21.0	6.7	26.8	20.1
Kazakhstan	7.3	35.0	-27.6	28.3	14.2	-14.1	10.4	16.7	6.3
Sweden	5.7	31.5	-25.8	36.7	20.4	-16.4	6.6	22.2	15.6
Moldova	9.9	35.3	-25.3	6.3	11.0	4.6	11.9	21.3	9.4
Slovak Republic	5.4	30.0	-24.6	12.6	10.7	-1.9	14.7	33.2	18.5
United Kingdom	8.0	32.3	-24.3	27.7	20.0	-7.6	10.9	26.2	15.2
Czech Republic	5.3	29.6	-24.3	14.5	8.2	-6.2	11.2	28.0	16.8
Bulgaria	7.3	31.5	-24.1	14.1	11.5	-2.7	14.7	22.7	8.0
Slovenia	8.1	31.7	-23.6	22.8	14.5	-8.3	11.8	31.3	19.6
Jordan	6.0	29.1	-23.1	27.1	11.1	-16.0	44.2	67.5	23.3
Russia	9.6	31.9	-22.3	20.3	12.3	-8.0	8.5	16.3	7.8
Iceland	14.1	36.2	-22.1	21.1	14.1	-7.0	9.6	32.9	23.3
Portugal	3.1	25.0	-21.9	47.9	15.1	-32.8	15.0	46.6	31.6
Japan	7.3	28.0	-20.8	7.5	3.4	-4.0	12.0	25.0	12.9
Australia	6.2	26.9	-20.7	33.2	19.2	-14.0	17.5	34.1	16.6
Albania	5.1	25.6	-20.5	37.8	23.2	-14.6	24.9	34.7	9.8
Croatia	12.9	33.3	-20.4	20.1	16.5	-3.6	12.9	32.0	19.1
Estonia	8.0	27.7	-19.8	17.3	15.2	-2.0	11.2	21.3	10.1
Romania	3.1	22.7	-19.6	13.4	11.4	-2.0	8.1	34.5	26.4
Hong Kong (China)	5.5	24.9	-19.4	19.7	6.4	-13.3	13.7	23.7	10.1
B-S-J-Z (China)	3.8	22.7	-18.9	15.1	9.1	-6.0	11.1	12.3	1.2
Brunei Darussalam	8.0	25.8	-17.8	36.6	18.4	-18.2	21.6	29.6	8.0
Luxembourg	14.0	31.7	-17.8	25.0	14.6	-10.5	10.0	25.2	15.2
Thailand	0.8	17.6	-16.9	19.4	14.5	-4.9	20.5	45.2	24.7
Chinese Taipei	4.8	21.4	-16.6	23.8	8.7	-15.0	12.4	24.0	11.6
Malta	8.6	24.5	-15.9	26.6	14.6	-12.0	17.2	31.0	13.8
Belgium	6.2	22.1	-15.9	30.9	16.3	-14.6	13.3	25.0	11.7
Macao (China)	7.8	23.5	-15.6	15.1	7.7	-7.4	10.5	26.3	15.9

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.6.7, II.B1.8.22 and II.B1.8.23.

Statlink

Table II.2 [2/2]. Snapshot of expectations for the future, by gender and socio-economic status

		Countries/economies with share of top performers who do not expect to complete tertiary education below the OECD average or a share of top performers who expect to work in STEM occupations above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a share of students not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with share of top performers who do not expect to complete tertiary education above the OECD average or a share of top performers who expect to work in STEM occupations below the OECD average
	Percentage of students who do not expect to complete tertiary education amongst those who have attained at least minimum academic proficiency (Level 2) in the three core PISA subjects and are high performers (Level 4) in at least one subject			Percentage of top performers in science or mathematics who expect to work as …
				… science and engineering professionals when they are 30			… health professionals when they are 30
	Advantaged students	Disadvantaged students	Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys
	%	%	% dif.	%	%	% dif.	%	%	% dif.
Netherlands	8.6	22.8	-14.2	19.0	8.2	-10.7	9.5	28.7	19.2
Uruguay	10.1	24.1	-14.1	47.0	31.3	-15.8	11.4	c	c
Denmark	12.5	26.2	-13.7	32.3	16.9	-15.4	10.6	29.8	19.2
France	7.5	20.5	-13.0	33.1	16.9	-16.2	12.6	27.6	15.0
Lithuania	3.3	15.9	-12.7	17.9	13.5	-4.4	6.7	31.8	25.1
Canada	2.6	15.0	-12.4	31.4	14.1	-17.3	18.5	39.4	20.9
Belarus	4.7	16.7	-12.0	14.1	10.9	-3.2	11.0	19.9	9.0
Qatar	3.1	14.9	-11.9	34.9	22.3	-12.6	22.2	37.1	14.9
Bosnia and Herzegovina	2.9	13.7	-10.8	29.9	21.1	-8.9	7.3	c	c
Ireland	2.6	13.4	-10.8	29.6	16.7	-12.9	17.0	30.4	13.4
Israel	9.5	20.0	-10.4	23.6	16.2	-7.3	10.2	26.7	16.5
Serbia	2.2	12.1	-9.9	14.8	16.9	2.1	14.1	21.5	7.3
North Macedonia	5.3	14.8	-9.6	14.0	20.0	5.9	6.4	14.0	7.6
Korea	1.6	11.0	-9.5	18.5	7.2	-11.3	10.3	15.2	4.9
United States	1.4	10.5	-9.1	27.8	10.4	-17.4	14.5	37.7	23.1
Greece	2.1	11.0	-8.9	23.1	23.4	0.3	15.4	27.7	12.3
Argentina	4.6	10.6	-6.0	42.2	27.0	-15.2	7.3	19.3	12.0
Mexico	1.4	7.3	-5.9	43.2	27.0	-16.2	10.7	c	c
Chile	3.1	8.9	-5.8	38.1	22.7	-15.4	25.6	46.4	20.8
Cyprus	1.1	6.6	-5.6	26.3	21.6	-4.8	22.2	26.7	4.6
Brazil	3.5	9.1	-5.6	34.2	20.2	-14.0	22.9	39.5	16.6
Montenegro	3.4	8.5	-5.1	9.8	17.5	7.8	13.3	17.0	3.7
United Arab Emirates	3.0	6.8	-3.8	31.5	16.2	-15.3	19.3	38.5	19.3
Turkey	1.8	5.1	-3.3	32.7	21.7	-11.0	27.4	52.3	25.0
Malaysia	6.4	9.5	-3.1	38.2	14.7	-23.5	9.7	39.0	29.2
Baku (Azerbaijan)	9.7	12.0	-2.3	13.4	13.2	-0.2	15.5	27.7	12.2
Singapore	1.8	2.8	-1.0	27.0	11.9	-15.1	15.4	29.9	14.6
Ukraine	10.5	8.6	1.9	11.2	5.0	-6.2	5.2	14.5	9.3
Morocco	37.6	c	c	40.4	45.2	4.8	c	c	c
Lebanon	16.5	c	c	46.6	26.7	-20.0	21.1	42.5	21.4
Kosovo	10.7	c	c	19.9	m	m	c	m	m
Saudi Arabia	9.0	c	c	30.0	11.7	-18.3	c	c	c
Costa Rica	2.8	c	c	39.1	29.8	-9.3	c	c	c
Peru	2.7	c	c	34.2	12.5	-21.7	8.3	c	c
Colombia	2.5	c	c	36.2	9.0	-27.3	8.4	c	c
Georgia	1.8	c	c	22.2	16.3	-5.9	6.9	c	c
Indonesia	0.5	c	c	12.5	5.0	-7.5	17.7	33.0	15.3
Panama	6.0	m	m	9.8	m	m	c	m	m
Philippines	4.8	m	m	35.8	17.3	-18.5	c	c	c
Dominican Republic	2.9	m	m	m	m	m	m	m	m
Spain	m	m	m	34.2	19.4	-14.7	11.9	28.3	16.4

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.6.7, II.B1.8.22 and II.B1.8.23.

Statlink

Table II.3 [1/2]. Snapshot of immigrant students

		Countries/economies with a mean score in reading or a share of students above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean score in reading or a share of students not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean score in reading or a share of students below the OECD average
	Percentage of immigrant students	Performance in reading			Score-point difference in reading performance associated with immigrant background	Academically resilient immigrant students1
		Non-immigrant students	Second-generation immigrant students	First-generation immigrant students	After accounting for gender, and students' and schools' socio-economic profile
	%	Mean score	Mean score	Mean score	Score dif.	%
OECD average	13.0	494	465	440	-24	16.8
Macao (China)	62.9	512	528	540	26	27.3
Qatar	56.8	368	423	454	63	36.4
United Arab Emirates	55.8	386	465	484	64	38.5
Luxembourg	54.9	491	450	461	-17	21.8
Hong Kong (China)	37.9	529	533	502	9	24.0
Canada	35.0	525	535	508	-1	26.2
Switzerland	33.9	503	453	448	-25	15.7
Australia	27.7	504	523	501	7	29.1
New Zealand	26.5	510	518	500	-8	26.5
Singapore	24.8	546	587	554	-9	28.9
United States	23.0	510	512	479	16	24.5
Austria	22.7	500	446	421	-33	11.2
Germany	22.2	519	477	405	-17	16.0
Sweden	20.5	525	471	410	-54	10.3
United Kingdom	19.8	511	493	488	-4	20.5
Belgium	18.1	506	459	427	-21	12.0
Ireland	17.9	522	509	508	-9	21.6
Israel	16.4	481	493	398	6	24.3
Cyprus	14.8	426	420	436	9	27.9
France	14.3	502	461	425	-13	13.4
Netherlands	13.8	498	433	399	-23	8.9
Norway	12.4	509	463	451	-33	13.9
Saudi Arabia	11.9	400	435	437	32	38.8
Greece	11.7	465	420	397	-22	12.1
Jordan	11.6	421	433	434	14	31.3
Denmark	10.7	509	447	435	-34	9.3
Estonia	10.4	528	492	453	-35	13.6
Italy	10.0	482	445	433	-22	14.1
Costa Rica	10.0	430	408	404	-12	17.5
Serbia	9.3	441	447	449	2	26.9
Croatia	9.1	481	473	464	-3	21.2
Slovenia	8.9	502	464	422	-28	8.8
Malta	8.8	452	433	457	-12	27.6
Kazakhstan	8.2	389	389	366	-3	20.3
Brunei Darussalam	8.2	403	460	485	25	53.3
Portugal	7.0	495	483	436	-26	17.1
Lebanon	6.0	364	306	316	-44	14.6
Panama	6.0	381	375	426	-12	41.4

1. Immigrant students who scored in the top quarter of performance in reading amongst students in their own country.

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of immigrant students.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.9.1 and II.B1.9.3.

Statlink

Table II.3 [2/2]. Snapshot of immigrant students

		Countries/economies with a mean score in reading or a share of students above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean score in reading or a share of students not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean score in reading or a share of students below the OECD average
	Percentage of immigrant students	Performance in reading			Score-point difference in reading performance associated with immigrant background	Academically resilient immigrant students1
		Non-immigrant students	Second-generation immigrant students	First-generation immigrant students	After accounting for gender, and students' and schools' socio-economic profile
	%	Mean score	Mean score	Mean score	Score dif.	%
Montenegro	5.8	422	438	415	-7	29.6
Finland	5.8	527	456	420	-74	7.9
Russia	5.8	480	491	457	-7	25.8
Iceland	5.6	481	412	402	-55	7.0
Baku (Azerbaijan)	5.2	393	386	369	-13	19.8
Argentina	4.6	404	414	395	12	23.0
Latvia	4.4	480	467	515	-7	27.5
Belarus	4.1	475	461	447	-9	22.6
Czech Republic	4.1	493	459	421	-34	12.3
Chile	3.4	456	447	435	-14	18.6
Dominican Republic	2.9	347	323	322	-17	20.0
Bosnia and Herzegovina	2.8	405	403	369	-23	20.1
Hungary	2.6	477	510	468	-7	31.0
Ukraine	2.3	468	456	419	-25	15.3
Malaysia	1.6	417	413	c	-3	25.7
North Macedonia	1.6	397	372	c	-27	18.7
Mexico	1.6	424	332	324	-80	7.3
Lithuania	1.6	478	454	469	-27	20.3
Moldova	1.4	428	433	c	-14	31.5
Georgia	1.4	384	328	c	-47	12.5
Uruguay	1.3	429	399	404	-42	22.3
Slovak Republic	1.2	460	424	387	-40	12.6
Bulgaria	1.1	425	c	c	-34	16.8
Kosovo	1.1	355	339	c	-31	14.6
Thailand	1.1	394	348	c	-2	17.4
Philippines	1.0	344	c	261	-64	11.9
Turkey	0.9	467	474	c	-27	25.1
Morocco	0.8	361	c	c	-55	7.6
Romania	0.8	431	c	c	c	m
Chinese Taipei	0.7	504	c	c	-82	17.3
Poland	0.6	514	c	c	c	m
Japan	0.6	w	w	w	w	w
Albania	0.6	407	c	c	-68	3.0
Brazil	0.6	418	332	c	-74	4.6
Colombia	0.6	414	c	c	-46	13.5
Peru	0.5	403	c	c	c	m
Indonesia	0.3	373	c	c	-89	0.6
Korea	0.2	515	c	c	c	m
B-S-J-Z (China)	0.2	556	c	c	c	m
Spain	12.2	m	m	m	m	m

1. Immigrant students who scored in the top quarter of performance in reading amongst students in their own country.

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of immigrant students.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.9.1 and II.B1.9.3.

Statlink

Table II.4 [1/2]. Snapshot of enrolment and resources allocated to schools

		Countries/economies with segregation across schools below the OECD average or resources allocated above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with segregation across schools or resources allocated to schools not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with segregation across schools above the OECD average or resources allocated below the OECD average
	Index of social inclusion1	Isolation2 of disadvantaged students3 from high-achieving students4 in reading	Segregation of immigrant students (isolation index)2	Proportion of students in schools whose teachers hold at least a master's degree			Proportion of students in schools whose principal reported a lack in educational material
				Advantaged students	Disadvantaged students	Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students	Advantaged students	Disadvantaged students	Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students
	%	Mean index	Mean index	%	%	% dif.	%	%	% dif.
OECD average	76.1	0.67	0.45	47.8	40.1	7.7	20.6	34.0	-13.5
Norway	91.4	0.56	0.36	m	m	m	16.7	24.0	-7.3
Kosovo	88.4	0.59	0.66	36.6	52.5	-15.9	75.3	94.1	-18.8
Finland	87.5	0.56	0.49	84.5	92.4	-7.9	20.6	19.2	1.4
Iceland	87.3	0.59	0.40	15.5	19.4	-4.0	10.9	21.6	-10.7
Montenegro	85.7	0.65	0.31	12.1	3.8	8.3	43.7	31.7	12.0
Sweden	85.6	0.60	0.39	49.9	30.7	19.2	5.8	11.6	-5.8
Denmark	85.6	0.59	0.49	5.8	2.7	3.1	2.7	13.9	-11.2
Cyprus	84.9	0.61	0.34	54.2	45.0	9.1	0.0	53.4	-53.4
Canada	84.9	0.58	0.38	19.7	18.9	0.8	3.1	21.1	-18.1
Bosnia and Herzegovina	83.8	0.64	0.47	15.4	4.7	10.7	47.4	66.8	-19.3
Ireland	83.0	0.60	0.26	31.1	29.8	1.3	15.3	40.9	-25.6
New Zealand	82.4	0.62	0.32	15.4	17.4	-2.0	4.4	16.7	-12.4
Switzerland	82.3	0.70	0.24	78.2	63.9	14.3	14.2	21.0	-6.9
Malta	81.9	0.61	0.47	20.1	20.9	-0.8	0.7	40.6	-39.9
Croatia	81.5	0.66	0.32	93.5	85.0	8.5	52.8	56.2	-3.4
Baku (Azerbaijan)	80.9	0.58	0.37	39.4	43.6	-4.3	15.1	17.8	-2.7
Georgia	80.7	0.67	0.77	58.7	65.2	-6.4	32.6	47.8	-15.2
Russia	80.6	0.66	0.41	58.1	40.2	17.9	26.2	55.0	-28.9
North Macedonia	80.2	0.67	0.50	6.2	4.8	1.4	48.8	81.9	-33.2
Chinese Taipei	80.0	0.68	0.83	56.9	51.5	5.4	5.5	15.7	-10.3
Estonia	79.5	0.60	0.48	84.0	78.1	5.9	19.8	39.3	-19.5
Korea	78.9	0.66	0.00	44.1	35.4	8.6	41.8	53.7	-11.9
Kazakhstan	78.7	0.64	0.48	46.1	32.7	13.4	35.2	57.4	-22.2
Brunei Darussalam	78.4	0.70	0.52	41.0	18.4	22.5	37.8	44.0	-6.1
Poland	78.3	0.64	0.00	98.3	95.4	2.9	18.0	27.2	-9.2
Greece	78.2	0.66	0.33	38.3	19.1	19.2	46.3	62.6	-16.3
Netherlands	78.2	0.72	0.44	41.9	14.6	27.3	20.9	7.1	13.8
Italy	78.1	0.72	0.41	63.5	72.3	-8.9	15.2	40.8	-25.7
Qatar	77.5	0.69	0.22	39.4	19.0	20.3	5.3	0.0	5.3
Latvia	77.1	0.67	0.61	56.3	46.6	9.7	15.1	22.8	-7.7
Japan	76.8	0.72	w	m	m	m	42.2	67.4	-25.2
France	76.8	0.67	0.43	44.7	42.4	2.3	11.0	16.3	-5.3
Portugal	76.7	0.60	0.48	19.3	16.7	2.6	34.8	39.7	-4.9
United Kingdom	76.6	0.62	0.45	27.0	13.5	13.5	18.5	26.3	-7.8
Serbia	76.6	0.70	0.32	44.7	26.0	18.6	40.0	68.3	-28.3
Belgium	76.1	0.72	0.42	52.1	31.6	20.5	18.0	36.7	-18.7
Spain	75.8	m	0.38	36.9	40.6	-3.7	22.6	53.0	-30.4
Australia	75.6	0.63	0.34	24.3	12.6	11.7	1.3	20.9	-19.6

1. The index of social inclusion is calculated as 100*(1-rho), where rho stands for the intra-class correlation of socio-economic status. The intra-class correlation, in turn, is the variation in student socio-economic status between schools, divided by the sum of the variation in student socio-economic status between schools and the variation in student socio-economic status within schools, and multiplied by 100.

2. The isolation index measures whether students of type (a) are more concentrated in some schools. The index is related to the likelihood of a representative type (a) student to be enrolled in schools that enrol students of another type. It ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 corresponding to no segregation and 1 to full segregation.

3. A socio-economically disadvantaged student is a student in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in his or her own country/economy.

4. High-achieving students are students who score amongst the top 25% of students, within their country or economy, on the PISA test.

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the index of social inclusion.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.4.6, II.B1.4.8, II.B1.5.4, II.B1.5.15 and II.B1.9.11.

Statlink

Table II.4 [2/2]. Snapshot of enrolment and resources allocated to schools

		Countries/economies with segregation across schools below the OECD average or resources allocated above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with segregation across schools or resources allocated to schools not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with segregation across schools above the OECD average or resources allocated below the OECD average
	Index of social inclusion1	Isolation2 of disadvantaged students3 from high-achieving students4 in reading	Segregation of immigrant students (isolation index)2	Proportion of students in schools whose teachers hold at least a master's degree			Proportion of students in schools whose principal reported a lack in educational material
				Advantaged students	Disadvantaged students	Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students	Advantaged students	Disadvantaged students	Difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students
	%	Mean index	Mean index	%	%	% dif.	%	%	% dif.
Slovenia	75.5	0.73	0.43	13.2	7.2	6.0	12.3	41.0	-28.6
Ukraine	75.2	0.68	0.56	73.7	68.8	5.0	73.4	80.8	-7.4
Saudi Arabia	75.1	0.65	0.52	4.5	3.1	1.4	25.6	50.5	-24.9
Singapore	74.9	0.70	0.23	37.1	17.6	19.5	0.0	0.0	0.0
Lithuania	74.6	0.71	0.79	53.8	37.4	16.4	31.9	21.9	10.0
United States	74.2	0.64	0.43	67.5	43.1	24.4	13.1	17.6	-4.4
Dominican Republic	74.1	0.69	0.61	15.5	5.5	10.0	19.8	69.7	-49.9
Germany	74.0	0.72	0.33	91.3	80.7	10.6	37.5	42.9	-5.4
Belarus	73.4	0.71	0.42	2.3	2.2	0.1	25.6	49.0	-23.4
Jordan	73.0	0.62	0.38	11.7	10.0	1.8	34.5	62.1	-27.6
Czech Republic	72.3	0.76	0.54	98.3	80.9	17.4	25.0	37.9	-12.9
Luxembourg	72.2	0.74	0.15	85.0	74.6	10.4	0.0	0.0	0.0
Moldova	72.1	0.70	0.73	30.4	10.2	20.2	58.9	65.3	-6.4
Israel	71.6	0.75	0.39	32.4	36.5	-4.1	31.8	37.2	-5.4
Macao (China)	71.3	0.56	0.10	m	m	m	16.2	10.6	5.6
Romania	70.5	0.75	0.00	69.1	40.8	28.4	22.6	51.6	-29.0
Albania	70.0	0.68	0.88	56.8	57.0	-0.2	40.7	70.7	-30.0
United Arab Emirates	69.4	0.78	0.30	26.4	34.8	-8.4	4.5	30.6	-26.1
Malaysia	69.0	0.69	0.72	10.0	5.4	4.6	13.5	27.8	-14.3
Lebanon	67.8	0.73	0.50	24.8	20.9	3.9	5.2	39.8	-34.6
Hong Kong (China)	67.4	0.67	0.18	56.9	44.7	12.1	6.5	24.1	-17.6
Turkey	67.2	0.69	0.77	11.1	18.9	-7.9	2.7	27.0	-24.3
Philippines	66.8	0.72	0.70	24.1	14.2	10.0	15.9	70.0	-54.1
Morocco	66.0	0.70	0.76	8.4	9.6	-1.2	54.3	75.1	-20.9
Uruguay	64.2	0.73	0.75	2.9	0.8	2.1	14.5	35.8	-21.3
Argentina	63.7	0.77	0.59	39.5	24.5	15.0	23.0	58.2	-35.2
Hungary	63.6	0.80	0.53	89.2	58.9	30.2	45.8	52.6	-6.8
B-S-J-Z (China)	63.2	0.72	0.00	17.8	3.5	14.3	12.5	32.4	-19.9
Costa Rica	63.1	0.73	0.42	26.1	27.9	-1.8	51.1	56.7	-5.6
Slovak Republic	63.0	0.76	0.83	98.0	91.4	6.6	49.8	63.2	-13.4
Bulgaria	62.9	0.82	0.79	88.3	81.8	6.4	17.2	29.5	-12.3
Indonesia	62.3	0.70	0.95	13.7	5.5	8.2	36.9	69.4	-32.5
Thailand	62.1	0.73	0.88	27.8	34.5	-6.7	23.9	84.3	-60.4
Mexico	61.7	0.70	0.81	28.9	21.8	7.1	24.7	69.2	-44.5
Panama	61.0	0.73	0.57	13.2	17.5	-4.3	26.6	71.3	-44.7
Brazil	60.8	0.69	0.92	16.5	4.6	11.9	6.2	52.0	-45.8
Colombia	59.5	0.74	0.85	12.5	9.8	2.7	29.0	85.2	-56.2
Chile	56.3	0.74	0.60	14.5	8.2	6.2	18.0	25.6	-7.6
Peru	48.8	0.82	0.00	12.4	9.5	2.9	19.6	74.6	-55.0

1. The index of social inclusion is calculated as 100*(1-rho), where rho stands for the intra-class correlation of socio-economic status. The intra-class correlation, in turn, is the variation in student socio-economic status between schools, divided by the sum of the variation in student socio-economic status between schools and the variation in student socio-economic status within schools, and multiplied by 100.

2. The isolation index measures whether students of type (a) are more concentrated in some schools. The index is related to the likelihood of a representative type (a) student to be enrolled in schools that enrol students of another type. It ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 corresponding to no segregation and 1 to full segregation.

3. A socio-economically disadvantaged student is a student in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in his or her own country/economy.

4. High-achieving students are students who score amongst the top 25% of students, within their country or economy, on the PISA test.

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the index of social inclusion.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.4.6, II.B1.4.8, II.B1.5.4, II.B1.5.15 and II.B1.9.11.

Statlink

Table II.5 [1/2]. Snapshot of gender gaps in performance

		Countries/economies with a mean score above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean score not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean score below the OECD average
	Reading performance			Mathematics performance			Science performance
	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys
	Mean score	Mean score	Score dif.	Mean score	Mean score	Score dif.	Mean score	Mean score	Score dif.
OECD average	472	502	30	492	487	-5	488	490	2
Colombia	407	417	10	401	381	-20	420	407	-12
Peru	395	406	11	408	392	-16	411	397	-13
Mexico	415	426	11	415	403	-12	424	415	-9
B-S-J-Z (China)	549	562	13	597	586	-11	596	584	-12
Panama	370	384	14	357	349	-8	365	364	0
Costa Rica	419	434	14	411	394	-18	420	411	-9
Argentina	393	409	16	387	372	-15	409	399	-10
Chile	442	462	20	421	414	-7	445	442	-3
United Kingdom	494	514	20	508	496	-12	506	503	-2
Japan	493	514	20	532	522	-10	531	528	-3
Belgium	482	504	22	514	502	-12	501	496	-5
Chinese Taipei	492	514	22	533	529	-4	516	515	-1
Macao (China)	514	536	22	560	556	-4	543	545	2
Belarus	463	486	23	475	469	-6	473	470	-3
Uruguay	415	438	23	422	414	-8	428	424	-3
Singapore	538	561	23	571	567	-4	553	549	-4
Ireland	506	530	23	503	497	-6	495	497	1
United States	494	517	24	482	474	-9	503	502	-1
Korea	503	526	24	528	524	-4	521	517	-4
Portugal	480	504	24	497	488	-9	494	489	-5
Italy	464	489	25	494	479	-16	470	466	-3
France	480	505	25	499	492	-6	493	493	1
Kosovo	340	366	25	368	364	-4	362	368	6
Russia	466	491	25	490	485	-5	477	478	1
Turkey	453	478	25	456	451	-5	465	472	7
Indonesia	358	383	25	374	383	10	393	399	7
Baku (Azerbaijan)	377	403	26	423	416	-8	395	400	5
Brazil	400	426	26	388	379	-9	403	404	2
Germany	486	512	26	503	496	-7	502	504	1
Morocco	347	373	26	368	367	-1	372	381	9
Malaysia	402	428	26	437	443	7	434	441	6
Hungary	463	489	26	486	477	-9	484	478	-6
Kazakhstan	374	401	27	424	422	-1	394	401	7
Philippines	325	352	27	346	358	12	355	359	3
Lebanon	338	366	28	394	393	0	381	386	5
Austria	471	499	28	505	492	-13	491	489	-2
New Zealand	491	520	29	499	490	-9	509	508	-2
Netherlands	470	499	29	520	519	-1	499	508	8

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from Volume I).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the gender gap in reading performance.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.7.1, II.B1.7.3 and II.B1.7.5.

Statlink

Table II.5 [2/2]. Snapshot of gender gaps in performance

		Countries/economies with a mean score above the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean score not significantly different from the OECD average
		Countries/economies with a mean score below the OECD average
	Reading performance			Mathematics performance			Science performance
	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys	Boys	Girls	Difference between girls and boys
	Mean score	Mean score	Score dif.	Mean score	Mean score	Score dif.	Mean score	Mean score	Score dif.
Canada	506	535	29	514	510	-5	516	520	3
Luxembourg	456	485	29	487	480	-7	475	479	5
Denmark	486	516	29	511	507	-4	492	494	2
Bosnia and Herzegovina	389	418	30	408	405	-3	398	399	1
Brunei Darussalam	393	423	30	426	434	8	427	435	7
Montenegro	407	437	30	434	425	-8	413	418	5
Switzerland	469	500	31	519	512	-7	495	495	0
Estonia	508	538	31	528	519	-8	528	533	5
Dominican Republic	326	357	31	324	327	3	331	340	10
Australia	487	519	31	494	488	-6	504	502	-2
Poland	495	528	33	516	515	-1	511	511	0
Latvia	462	495	33	500	493	-7	483	491	8
Croatia	462	495	33	469	460	-9	470	474	4
Czech Republic	474	507	33	501	498	-4	496	498	2
Ukraine	450	484	33	456	449	-7	470	468	-2
Romania	411	445	34	432	427	-5	425	426	1
Sweden	489	523	34	502	503	1	496	503	8
Slovak Republic	441	475	34	488	484	-5	461	467	6
Hong Kong (China)	507	542	35	548	554	6	512	521	9
Serbia	422	458	36	450	447	-3	437	442	5
Albania	387	425	38	435	440	5	409	425	16
Georgia	362	399	38	396	400	4	376	390	14
Lithuania	457	496	39	480	482	2	479	485	6
Thailand	372	411	39	410	426	16	415	435	20
Moldova	404	445	40	420	422	2	423	434	11
Bulgaria	401	441	40	435	437	2	417	432	15
Iceland	454	494	41	490	500	10	471	479	8
Slovenia	475	517	42	509	509	-1	502	512	10
Greece	437	479	42	452	451	0	446	457	11
Norway	476	523	47	497	505	7	485	496	11
Cyprus	401	448	47	447	455	8	429	450	21
Israel	445	493	48	458	467	9	452	471	19
Malta	425	474	49	466	478	13	447	468	21
Jordan	393	444	51	397	403	6	414	444	29
Finland	495	546	52	504	510	6	510	534	24
North Macedonia	368	420	52	391	398	7	404	423	19
Saudi Arabia	373	427	54	367	380	13	372	401	29
United Arab Emirates	403	460	57	430	439	9	420	447	26
Qatar	375	440	65	402	426	24	400	439	39
Spain	m	m	m	485	478	-6	484	482	-2

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).

Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9 from Volume I).

The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.

Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the gender gap in reading performance.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables II.B1.7.1, II.B1.7.3 and II.B1.7.5.

Statlink