PISA 2025 reading results: a guide for schools

The reading results at a glance

Start with the comparison, then ask what it means for your school. PISA can frame a staff discussion; your students' work and assessments should guide the support you choose.

OECD published PISA 2025 Results, Volume I: Future-Ready Students on 8 September 2026. PISA assesses sampled 15-year-old students applying knowledge in reading, mathematics and science. The assessment year is 2025; the publication year is 2026.

The preface reports a 28-point fall in average OECD reading performance between 2015 and 2025. Annex A1 separately reports falls of 11 points in 2018-2022 and 14 points in 2022-2025 across 35 OECD countries with comparable data. These are score points, not percentages. The periods and comparison groups matter; no figure describes every country.

These are separate comparisons. Do not add them into one trend: the starting years and country groups differ. Score points are not percentages, and an OECD average does not describe every country.

What the PISA 2025 reading results can and cannot tell you

Successive PISA cycles compare different samples of 15-year-olds; they do not track the same learners over time. Sampling uncertainty, coverage and cross-cycle measurement error qualify comparisons. OECD considers the decline unlikely to be only a measurement artefact, but that does not identify a cause. Read the report's technical notes before interpreting a small difference or a country ranking.

A school therefore needs two distinct questions: "What might explain this wider pattern?" and "What support do our students need?" You can act on a well-evidenced local need without claiming to have solved the first question. Equally, a plausible account of national trends does not establish that a proposed intervention will help your particular learners.

Why did PISA reading scores fall? Keep explanations open to testing

OECD discusses attentive reading and earlier-age learning patterns in Annex A1. Differences between reading processes were clearer in 2018-2022; across 2018-2025, declines were more uniform across processes, while differences by text length persisted. These patterns offer leads about skills and timing. Measured fatigue generally does not explain the trend, and the analysis does not establish what caused the changes.

The digital-use and AI findings discussed here from Chapter 4 concern science scores. They do not directly estimate effects on reading. Box I.4.2 says these relationships cannot determine causality. Students' prior difficulties may affect how they use a tool, and other differences may affect both use and outcomes. Statistical adjustment does not remove every alternative explanation.

Use the following table as a discussion aid. It is an editorial set of hypotheses and possible checks, not an OECD list of proven causes. A better test may require research beyond a school's own monitoring; the local checks help define the question, not settle national causation.

Choose reading support from intervention evidence

For support decisions, use research that evaluates teaching. The IES/What Works Clearinghouse guide addresses reading interventions for students with reading difficulties in grades 4-9. It is a separate evidence base from PISA, with four recommendations and explicit evidence ratings.

• Decoding, strong evidence: explicitly help students work out unfamiliar words, including longer words with several syllables.
• Fluency, strong evidence: use purposeful practice with feedback to develop accurate, increasingly effortless reading. Treat speed as part of a wider reading picture.
• Comprehension, strong evidence: develop vocabulary and background knowledge, work with questions, establish the gist, and teach students to notice when understanding breaks down.
• Challenging text, moderate evidence: support students to make sense of demanding material instead of expecting them to manage it unaided.

These ratings describe the guide's recommendation evidence. They are not predicted gains for your school or a fixed timetable. Consult the full guide to select and combine practices around assessed needs, staff expertise and available teaching time. Its grade range and reading-difficulty focus do not automatically cover every PISA participant.

The evidence review excluded general class-wide reading interventions, and many tested interventions combined several components. It cannot tell us the effect of one isolated classroom activity.

Language matters too. The guide does not establish identical results for Danish-, Spanish- or Italian-language teaching. Ask a qualified reading specialist how its practices fit the language of instruction and the learner's history. Do not assume the language a student is learning tells you which reading support they need.

A practical next step for your school team

The following process is an editorial proposal for a staff team. It is not a validated intervention. Keep the workload modest enough that the team can deliver the chosen support and examine what happened.

1. Choose one reading need. Review existing assessments and a small sample of student work with the relevant teachers. Be specific about words, fluency, vocabulary or understanding connected text.
2. Check what support is accessible. Consider attendance, language experience, opportunities to learn and provision already delivered. Ask students what helps them read and where they get stuck.
3. Plan a bounded response. Agree who will teach it, which materials they need and how it fits existing provision. Consult the reading specialist and intervention guidance before choosing an approach.
4. Agree a review point. Use an appropriate follow-up task, reasonably comparable conditions and a record of the teaching students received. Check whether the work is manageable for learners and staff.
5. Review and adapt. Look beyond the class average, identify who still needs help and decide whether to continue, adapt or seek specialist advice. A before-and-after change alone does not prove an effect.

Keep identifiable student work within your school's normal privacy and safeguarding arrangements. Check that materials, time and help are available at school. Offer families accessible information and a contact route, without making participation depend on parental English, purchases or subject knowledge.

Review participation, belonging and students' opportunities to influence the work alongside reading progress. Treat them as worthwhile outcomes in their own right, rather than combining them into a reading score. Follow the school's existing support arrangements when a student needs help.

For a broader discussion of observing communication and critical thinking in project work, see our guide to 21st-century skills. Those learning aims can complement a curriculum; the article does not establish that collaboration projects reverse national reading trends.

Sources and updates

Sources were checked on 30 September 2026: OECD's PISA 2025 Volume I, especially its preface, Annexes A1-A3 and Chapter 4; and the 2022 IES guide. The hypotheses and local decision process are editorial interpretations. We will correct substantive factual errors and update the article date when those corrections change the guidance.

If a future classroom collaboration serves your learning goals, explore Class2Class Discover and check each project's age range, language, timing and participation details. Project availability is separate from the reading-support decisions above.