Executive Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic was a stress test for education systems. It revealed whether schools and students around the globe were able to adapt to sudden and profound changes in how instruction is provided and how students learn. Now that the crisis phase has passed, policy makers and schools need to know where students stand in their learning and well-being to be able to provide remedial measures for those students who fell behind in their learning or suffered emotionally or physically from the pandemic. Updated information on the resources available and the general climate in schools after the pandemic can also help education systems prepare for the future.

Results from PISA 2022 show that some education systems coped better than others during and after pandemic-related school closures – and even learned from the experience. These resilient education systems have a few policies in common: they kept schools open for longer for more students; students encountered fewer obstacles to remote learning; and they worked to strengthen parent-school partnerships, among others.

Insights drawn from PISA 2022 data can help education systems bolster their resilience to disruption, and rethink learning and teaching. Given that it is all but inevitable that education will continue to be affected by natural and man-made shocks and disturbances, both global, such as pandemics and climate change, and local, including earthquakes, floods and war, education systems need to build their capacity to withstand adversity.

Resilient education systems

Four education systems, namely Japan, Korea, Lithuania and Chinese Taipei, could be considered “resilient” with regard to mathematics performance, equity and well-being. Twenty-one other education systems were resilient in one or two of the three aspects considered.
Between 2018 and 2022 trends in students’ sense of belonging at school were mixed, with equal proportions of countries/economies showing stable, improving or deteriorating trends. Of the 47 education systems with improving or stable trends, only 20 maintained or attained a level of students’ sense of belonging at school that was at or above the OECD average.
Disadvantaged students in 2022 were more likely than their advantaged peers to report feeling that they have fewer opportunities to form close bonds at and with school. However, PISA 2022 results suggest that systems offering greater fairness in learning opportunities also offer greater fairness in social opportunities.
Education systems that were resilient in mathematics performance differed in certain policies, practices and characteristics compared to other countries/economies, including in their response to COVID-19, in parental support and school climate, and in their approaches to selecting and grouping students, and to governing and allocating resources to schools.

How learning continued when schools were closed

Two out of three countries/economies closed their schools for longer than three months for a majority of their students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Students in systems that spared more students from longer closures scored higher in mathematics and reported a greater sense of belonging at school.
Almost one in two students indicated that, when learning at home, they frequently had difficulty motivating themselves to do schoolwork, and one in three students frequently did not fully understand school assignments, on average across OECD countries.
Students in education systems whose schools provided more activities to maintain learning and well-being during school closures reported feeling more confident in their ability to learn autonomously and remotely if their school has to close again in the future.

Life at school and support from home

On average across OECD countries, almost 40% of students reported that, in most lessons, the teacher does not show an interest in every student’s learning or does not continue teaching until students understand the material.
Some 30% of students, on average across OECD countries, reported that, in most or every mathematics lesson, they get distracted using digital devices; 25% of students reported that they get distracted by other students using these devices in class.
On average across OECD countries, students who reported feeling safe and were not exposed to bullying or risks at school have a stronger sense of belonging at school, feel more confident about their capacity for self-directed learning and are overall more satisfied with life.
In all countries/economies with available data, students who enjoy more support from their families reported a greater sense of belonging at school and life satisfaction, and more confidence in their capacity for self-directed learning. In most countries/economies, these students also reported feeling less anxiety towards mathematics.

Selecting and grouping students

On average across OECD countries and in a majority of education systems, students who had attended pre-primary education for at least one year were considerably less likely to have repeated a grade than students who had never attended pre-primary education or who had attended for less than one year, even after accounting for socio-economic factors.
In equitable and high-performing education systems, almost all students had attended pre-primary school; few students had repeated a grade; socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students were not heavily concentrated in certain schools; students were tracked into different curricular programmes relatively late; and comparatively few students were grouped by ability between classes.

Educational resources

In more than half of all education systems with available data, and on average across OECD countries, more students in 2022 than in 2018 attended a school whose principal reported that instruction is hindered by a shortage of education staff. In 58 countries/economies, the share of students in schools whose principal reported that instruction is hindered by a lack of teaching staff increased between 2018 and 2022.
On average across OECD countries and in 41 education systems, socio-economically disadvantaged schools were more likely than advantaged schools to suffer from a lack of or poor-quality digital resources.
Some 29% of students in schools where the use of cell phones is banned reported using a smartphone several times a day, on average across OECD countries, illustrating that cell phone bans are not always effectively enforced.
In those education systems where more students in 2022 than in 2018 attended schools that offer peer-to-peer tutoring, students’ sense of belonging at school strengthened during the period.

School governance

The top three quality-assurance mechanisms that appear to ensure that greater school autonomy is associated with better academic performance in mathematics are: teacher mentoring; monitoring teacher practice by having inspectors observe classes; and systematic recording of students’ test results and graduation rates.
Strong-performing school systems entrust principals and teachers with more responsibility.
Principals of private schools were more likely than their counterparts in public schools to report that their school is prepared for remote learning – even after all the efforts public schools made to improve digital learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table II.1. Snapshot of the resilience of education systems [1/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4). 1. Change from PISA 2018 to PISA 2022 2. Socio-economic fairness is measured by the percentage of variation in student performance that is not accounted for by differences in student socio-economic status. Higher percentages indicate higher levels of fairness by student socio-economic status. 3. A socio-economically advantaged (disadvantaged) student is a student in the top (bottom) quarter of ESCS in his or her own country/economy. Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3). The OECD average does not include Costa Rica and Spain for change in performance. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the students performance in Mathematics. Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 1; and Volume I, Annex B1.

Table II.1. Snapshot of the resilience of education systems [2/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4).
1. Change from PISA 2018 to PISA 2022
2. Socio-economic fairness is measured by the percentage of variation in student performance that is not accounted for by differences in student socio-economic status. Higher percentages indicate higher levels of fairness by student socio-economic status.
3. A socio-economically advantaged (disadvantaged) student is a student in the top (bottom) quarter of ESCS in his or her own country/economy.
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
The OECD average does not include Costa Rica and Spain for change in performance.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the students performance in Mathematics.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 1; and Volume I, Annex B1.

Table II.2. Snapshot of performance in mathematics, reading and science [1/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4).
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students who reported their school was closed for three months or less.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 2.

Table II.2. Snapshot of performance in mathematics, reading and science [2/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4).
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students who reported their school was closed for three months or less.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 2.

Table II.3. Snapshot of life at school and support from home [1/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4). 1. Change from PISA 2018 to PISA 2022 Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change between PISA 2018 and PISA 2022 in the percentage of students who reported that their teachers gave them extra help.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 3.

Table II.3. Snapshot of life at school and support from home [2/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4).
1. Change from PISA 2018 to PISA 2022
Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3). Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change between PISA 2018 and PISA 2022 in the percentage of students who reported that their teachers gave them extra help.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 3.

Table II.4. Snapshot of selecting and grouping students [1/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4). Note: The questions on grade repetition were not administered in Japan and Norway. The share of grade repeaters has been set to zero in agreement with countries since there is a policy of automatic grade progression and more than 99.5% of students were enrolled in the same grade level. 1. The isolation index measures the extent to which certain types of students (e.g. disadvantaged students) are isolated from other all other types of students or from a specific group of students (e.g. advantaged students), based on the schools they attend. It ranges from 0 to 1 where 0 corresponds to full exposure (no segregation) and 1 to full isolation/segregation. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students who reported they had attended pre-primary school for one year or more. Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 4 and Table B3.1.4.

Table II.4. Snapshot of selecting and grouping students [2/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4).
Note: The questions on grade repetition were not administered in Japan and Norway. The share of grade repeaters has been set to zero in agreement with countries since there is a policy of automatic grade progression and more than 99.5% of students were enrolled in the same grade level.
1. The isolation index measures the extent to which certain types of students (e.g. disadvantaged students) are isolated from other all other types of students or from a specific group of students (e.g. advantaged students), based on the schools they attend. It ranges from 0 to 1 where 0 corresponds to full exposure (no segregation) and 1 to full isolation/segregation.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students who reported they had attended pre-primary school for one year or more.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 4 and Table B3.1.4.

Table II.5. Snapshot of investments in a solid foundation for learning and well-being [1/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4). Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction is hindered to some extent or a lot by a lack of teaching staff.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 5.

Table II.5. Snapshot of investments in a solid foundation for learning and well-being [2/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4). Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction is hindered to some extent or a lot by a lack of teaching staff.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 5.

Table II.6. Snapshot of governing education systems [1/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4).
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction is hindered to some extent or a lot by a lack of teaching staff.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 5.

Table II.6. Snapshot of governing education systems [2/2]

* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4).
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction is hindered to some extent or a lot by a lack of teaching staff. Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Annex B1, Chapter 5.
StatLink https://stat.link/s8a9ry

╳

Disclaimers

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Note by the Republic of Türkiye
The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Türkiye recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Türkiye shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.

Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union
The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Türkiye. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Kosovo*: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm.

Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO) licence.