For years, some of the world’s wealthiest countries were assumed to have a fundamental educational advantage: strong schools, highly trained teachers, sophisticated infrastructure and substantial public spending.
The latest international assessment results challenge that assumption.
The OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2025 has recorded the lowest average performance ever measured across OECD countries in both mathematics and reading. The decline is not confined to one country or one education system. It represents a broader deterioration in foundational academic skills among 15-year-olds across many high-income societies.
The results are particularly striking because the decline predates the COVID-19 pandemic. School closures and disrupted learning clearly intensified educational difficulties, but the longer-term trend suggests deeper structural problems involving reading habits, digital distractions, classroom engagement, inequality and changing relationships between students, families and schools.
At the same time, several East Asian education systems continue to perform strongly, creating an increasingly important contrast.
The result is a global education paradox: countries with some of the world’s greatest economic and technological resources are struggling to preserve basic academic skills, while several Asian systems continue to produce strong results in mathematics, reading and science.
PISA 2025: What the Latest Numbers Show
PISA assesses the abilities of 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics and science. Rather than testing only whether students can reproduce information from a textbook, the assessment measures how effectively they can apply knowledge and skills to unfamiliar situations. The OECD describes reading performance as the ability to understand, use and reflect on written texts for personal goals, knowledge development and participation in society.
The 2025 assessment covered approximately 760,000 students across 91 countries and economies, making it one of the world’s largest international comparisons of adolescent learning.
The OECD-wide picture
The latest results show:
| Indicator | PISA 2025 trend |
|---|---|
| Reading | Lowest OECD average recorded |
| Mathematics | Lowest OECD average recorded |
| Science | Also declined, although the deterioration is less pronounced than in reading and mathematics |
| Low performers | Around one in five OECD students is now a low performer across all three core domains |
| Global participation | About 760,000 15-year-olds across 91 countries/economies |
The OECD says the share of students classified as low performers in mathematics, reading and science has increased to around one in five, compared with 16% in 2022.
The decline is therefore not simply a matter of countries moving up or down a ranking table.
It represents a deterioration in the basic capabilities that students are expected to develop before entering higher education, vocational training or the workforce.
Reading Has Become the Most Serious Warning Sign
Among the findings, the decline in reading deserves particular attention.
According to reporting based on the latest PISA data, the OECD’s average reading score has fallen from 501 points in 2012 to 466 in 2025.
That represents a profound change over little more than a decade.
Reading is also different from many other school subjects because it supports learning in virtually every discipline.
A student who struggles to understand a complex passage may also struggle with:
- science questions;
- mathematical word problems;
- history texts;
- examination instructions;
- university-level reading;
- workplace documents;
- online information;
- distinguishing evidence from misinformation.
The OECD therefore treats reading not simply as a language skill, but as a foundation for participation in modern society.
The latest decline is particularly concerning because students are increasingly surrounded by enormous amounts of written information while simultaneously spending less time engaging deeply with long-form reading.
The Digital Distraction Problem
One of the most frequently discussed explanations for declining reading performance is the changing digital environment.
Smartphones, short-form video, social media, gaming and increasingly AI-powered tools have changed how young people consume information.
The issue is not that technology is inherently harmful.
Digital tools can support:
- research;
- personalised learning;
- language development;
- accessibility;
- collaborative work;
- educational simulations;
- instant access to information.
The concern is how technology is used and what it replaces.
Recent analysis of PISA 2025 has linked excessive screen use and reduced recreational reading with weaker academic performance. Students spending very long periods using digital devices, particularly for non-educational activities, tend to perform worse than those maintaining more balanced patterns.
This creates a crucial distinction.
Digital literacy does not automatically produce deep literacy.
Being able to navigate a smartphone, search the internet or use an AI chatbot is not the same as being able to read a difficult text, identify its central argument, evaluate evidence and construct an independent response.
AI Adds a New Layer to the Problem
The rapid spread of generative AI has made the issue more complicated.
Students can now obtain summaries, explanations and draft answers almost instantly.
That can be educationally valuable when AI is used as a tutor or supplementary resource.
But there is a risk when technology replaces the cognitive work that students are supposed to perform themselves.
If a student consistently asks an AI system to summarise a chapter rather than reading it, the student receives the information without necessarily developing the ability to comprehend the original text.
The same problem applies to mathematics.
An AI system can solve an equation in seconds, but the educational objective may be for the student to understand why the solution works.
This is why the debate about AI in education increasingly needs to move beyond the question of whether students should use AI.
The more important question is:
Which cognitive tasks should technology assist, and which tasks must students continue to perform independently?
The latest PISA findings make that question particularly urgent.
COVID-19 Made the Decline Worse — But Did Not Start It
It would be tempting to attribute the entire decline to the pandemic.
COVID-19 caused unprecedented disruption to schooling. Millions of students experienced prolonged periods away from classrooms, interrupted routines and reduced interaction with teachers and classmates.
However, the PISA trend suggests that the problem is older.
The OECD’s latest assessment shows that performance had already been weakening in many systems before the pandemic. The post-2020 period accelerated or deepened an existing deterioration rather than creating it from nothing.
This distinction matters for policymakers.
If the problem were entirely pandemic-related, the solution could focus mainly on learning recovery.
But if the underlying causes include declining reading habits, classroom disruption, weak foundational instruction, digital distraction and disengagement, then simply adding temporary remedial classes will not be enough.
Countries may need to rethink how foundational learning is prioritised throughout secondary education.
The East Asian Exception: What Are High-Performing Systems Doing Differently?
The global decline becomes more striking when compared with the performance of several East Asian education systems.
PISA 2022 already showed a strong concentration of top-performing systems in East Asia. Singapore led mathematics, reading and science, while Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong and Macao also performed strongly across the assessment.
The latest results continue to highlight the strength of Asian education systems.
China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea remain among the strongest performers internationally, although comparisons need to account for differences in how individual economies participate in PISA.
What may explain the difference?
There is no single Asian “formula”, but several recurring features deserve attention:
- strong emphasis on foundational mathematics;
- substantial parental involvement;
- structured classroom environments;
- high expectations for academic achievement;
- strong teacher involvement;
- comparatively serious attitudes towards education;
- extensive practice and feedback;
- greater emphasis on sustained academic effort.
However, copying another country’s education model wholesale would be a mistake.
Education systems are shaped by culture, demographics, labour markets and social expectations.
The useful lesson is not “copy East Asia”.
It is:
Identify which practices protect foundational learning and adapt them to local circumstances.
Wealth Does Not Automatically Produce Better Learning
Perhaps the most important finding is that educational outcomes cannot be explained simply by national wealth.
Some high-income education systems are performing poorly despite substantial educational resources.
At the same time, several systems with lower levels of national income have demonstrated that significant progress is possible without possessing the resources of the world’s richest countries.
The PISA results therefore challenge a common assumption:
More money automatically means better educational outcomes.
Resources matter, but how resources are used matters just as much.
A school can have computers, smart boards and high-speed internet while students still struggle to read a complex passage.
A classroom can have advanced educational software while students still lack basic mathematical understanding.
Technology is therefore an input.
It is not the learning outcome itself.
Socioeconomic Inequality Remains a Major Factor
The decline in average scores should also not obscure differences within countries.
Students do not begin from identical circumstances.
Family income, parental education, access to books, quality of schools, neighbourhood conditions, nutrition, mental wellbeing and exposure to enriching activities can all influence learning.
PISA has consistently found a relationship between socioeconomic background and educational performance.
But recent findings also complicate the picture. The decline in some wealthy countries is not limited to disadvantaged students. In certain systems, performance among relatively advantaged students has also weakened.
This suggests that education policymakers cannot treat falling scores simply as an inequality problem.
There are two simultaneous challenges:
- Closing the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students.
- Preventing overall learning standards from declining.
Both require attention.
The Family Factor: A Quietly Changing Influence
Another issue emerging from the latest international evidence is the role of families.
Research accompanying the PISA release points to declining parental engagement with children’s education in several societies. Students who receive stronger family support tend to demonstrate better educational outcomes.
Family engagement does not necessarily mean supervising homework every evening.
It can involve much simpler behaviours:
- discussing what a child is reading;
- encouraging questions;
- maintaining routines;
- limiting distracting technology;
- showing interest in school;
- encouraging independent study;
- making books and other learning resources available.
The challenge is particularly relevant during adolescence, when parental influence can become less visible even though the home environment continues to shape learning habits.
What This Means for Schools
The PISA results should not be interpreted as an argument for simply increasing the amount of testing.
Testing identifies problems.
It does not automatically solve them.
Schools may need to focus more deliberately on foundational competencies throughout secondary education.
A stronger school response could include:
Reading across the curriculum
Reading should not be treated exclusively as the responsibility of language teachers. Students need opportunities to interpret complex texts in science, mathematics, social sciences and other subjects.
Mathematical reasoning
The objective should be deeper understanding rather than simply completing more exercises.
Structured technology use
Schools can teach students how to use digital tools productively while establishing boundaries around distraction.
AI literacy
Students should understand how AI works, where it can help and why independently verifying information remains essential.
Teacher support
Teachers need time, training and resources to identify students who are falling behind before learning gaps become entrenched.
Classroom discipline
Learning requires attention. Excessive disruption and unrestricted device use can undermine even a well-designed curriculum.
The Indian Context: Why These Global Findings Matter
India is not an OECD member and therefore the latest OECD-wide averages should not be interpreted as a direct measure of Indian school performance.
However, the international findings remain highly relevant.
India is simultaneously trying to strengthen foundational literacy and numeracy, expand digital learning and integrate artificial intelligence into education.
The challenge is ensuring that these priorities reinforce rather than undermine one another.
India’s National Education Policy 2020 has already placed foundational literacy and numeracy at the centre of school reform. Initiatives such as NIPUN Bharat reflect the recognition that students cannot progress effectively through the education system without strong basic reading, writing and numeracy skills.
The international evidence reinforces that principle.
Technology can expand educational opportunity, but it cannot replace foundational learning.
If students cannot read deeply, reason mathematically and evaluate information independently, access to more digital content will not necessarily translate into better education.
A Bigger Warning for the AI Era
The PISA results arrive at a particularly important moment.
Education systems are rapidly integrating AI into classrooms, assessment and learning platforms.
This creates enormous possibilities.
But there is a risk of confusing access to information with acquisition of knowledge.
A student may be able to ask an AI system a sophisticated question without possessing the foundational knowledge required to judge whether the answer is correct.
That makes reading, mathematics and science more important—not less.
The AI era may actually require stronger foundational education.
A student with strong reading ability can interrogate an AI response.
A student with mathematical reasoning can check whether a calculation is plausible.
A student with scientific literacy can question unsupported claims.
Foundational learning is therefore not an outdated educational objective.
It is a form of protection against misinformation and over-reliance on technology.
Broader Perspectives: Should Schools Become More Traditional?
The latest PISA decline has already triggered a debate over whether education systems moved too far away from structured teaching and core knowledge.
Some analysts argue that schools need to return to:
- stronger curricula;
- more explicit instruction;
- greater academic rigour;
- classroom discipline;
- regular reading;
- foundational mathematics;
- reduced digital distraction.
Others caution against treating PISA scores as the only definition of educational success.
Schools also have responsibilities involving creativity, collaboration, citizenship, wellbeing, problem-solving and social development.
The strongest response is unlikely to be a simple choice between “traditional” and “modern” education.
Students need both.
They need strong foundational knowledge and the ability to apply it creatively.
They need technology skills but also the capacity to put technology aside and concentrate.
They need critical thinking, but critical thinking itself depends partly on having sufficient knowledge to evaluate competing claims.
The central lesson from the latest results is therefore not that education should go backwards.
It is that innovation should not come at the expense of fundamentals.
Conclusion: The World Has a Learning Problem, Not Just a Testing Problem
The latest PISA results should be viewed as an early warning for education systems across the world.
The decline in reading and mathematics among students in many wealthy countries cannot be explained by a single factor. COVID-19, reduced reading for pleasure, digital distractions, changing family engagement, classroom disruption, inequality and evolving approaches to teaching all form part of a complicated picture.
What makes the situation particularly significant is that the decline is occurring in countries with substantial educational resources.
That means the challenge is not simply about spending more.
It is about deciding what schools should protect most carefully in an age of constant technological change.
Reading a difficult text requires concentration.
Mathematical reasoning requires persistence.
Science requires curiosity and evidence-based thinking.
None of these capabilities has become less important because AI can produce an answer in seconds.
If anything, they have become more valuable.
The lesson for policymakers, schools and families is therefore straightforward: embrace technology, but do not allow it to displace the foundational skills that make technology useful in the first place.
The future of education will not be secured by choosing between books and technology. It will depend on ensuring that students are capable of using technology without losing the ability to think deeply without it.
