Reading and maths scores are back near 2006 levels
One in three students scored below basic proficiency in maths in 2025, up from one in four in 2015.
Read the Portugal story →OECD PISA 2025 · released 8 September 2026
Compare PISA results across education systems. Explore reading, AI, inequality and life at school, with a close look at Portugal and the changes behind the scores.
Portugal in focus · 2025 subject scores
One in three students scored below basic proficiency in maths in 2025, up from one in four in 2015.
Read the Portugal story →PISA describes the reading challenge. A classroom experiment shows why assisted performance and independent learning need separate tests.
Read the reading and AI story →In Portugal, weekly discussions of school problems fell from 69% to 53% in three years. The international pattern is broader.
Read the family story →01 · The long view
The line shows Portugal against the OECD average in every available cycle. The score is a scale score for 15-year-olds, not a percentage correct. Reading starts in 2000, mathematics in 2003 and science in 2006.
Portugal and OECD average · PISA scale points
02 · The comparison
Portugal is close to the OECD average in all three subjects. The chart places 95% score-estimate intervals beside each score, so a one-place rank difference does not look more exact than the data allow. These intervals describe score estimates, not rank intervals.
Top 10 participating systems plus Portugal · mean score and 95% score-estimate interval
| Country/economy | Score | 95% score interval | Rank |
|---|
Rankings are indicative. Score intervals do not translate directly into rank intervals.
03 · The recent turn
This view compares 2022 with 2025. The headline counts systems with lower, similar or higher average scores; the chart highlights the largest movements, Portugal and the OECD’s 35-system comparable benchmark. Direction counts are descriptive and do not test statistical significance.
Change in PISA score points · 2022–2025
| Country/economy | 2022 | 2025 | Change |
|---|
Includes systems with comparable 2022 and 2025 estimates in the OECD table. Changes are raw score-point differences; some may not be statistically significant.
04 · The distribution
Mean scores compress a distribution into one number. These bars show how the share below Level 2 and the share at Level 5 or above changed between 2015 and 2025. The comparison is in percentage points.
Portugal · share of students below Level 2 or at Level 5+ · 2015 and 2025
In reading, the below-Level-2 share rose from 17% to 28%; in science, from 17% to 24%. These are different cohorts of 15-year-olds in each cycle. Below Level 2 is the OECD’s basic proficiency benchmark.
| Subject | Below L2, 2015 | Below L2, 2025 | Change | Level 5+, 2025 |
|---|
05 · Inside Portugal
That gap is larger than the difference between many countries near Portugal in the international table.
The OECD estimate describes an association with socio-economic status. It does not identify a single cause.
National rankings describe system-level averages. They do not show how evenly results are distributed inside a country.
06 · Classroom context
These are self-reported hours of general device use at school, not measures of generative AI. The adjusted scores show associations after accounting for socio-economic status; they do not show that device use caused a score change.
OECD average adjusted science score by reported hours of device use at school per day
Learning-use scores stay within a fairly narrow range across most categories. The leisure-use estimate for 5–7 hours is much lower, and that group represents 2% of students. Both series are self-reported cross-sectional associations adjusted for socio-economic status; they do not show that device use caused the score differences.
Portuguese students report fewer learning-device hours at school, slightly more leisure use and more classroom distraction than the OECD average.
Share reporting selected weekly uses · Portugal and OECD average
Portugal is slightly above the OECD average on these reported uses. Frequency is not a measure of learning gain, quality or independent work. Source: OECD, PISA 2025 Results, Volume I and Portugal country note.
Adjusted odds ratio for distraction in most or every science class · reference line = 1
Both estimates are below 1 after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. This is a cross-sectional association. OECD found that changes in system-level phone bans were not associated with reading or science score changes between 2022 and 2025. A policy association with distraction does not establish an effect on achievement. Source: OECD PISA 2025, Table I.B1.4.51 and chapter on school life.
07 · Reading in a digital world
The OECD also finds a 25 point fall in average reading scores since 2018 and asks students how they assess scientific information. Those trends make reading comprehension and source evaluation timely questions. PISA does not measure AI’s effect on learning.
Share of all student responses · OECD PISA reading assessment · 2018 and 2025
This metric counts responses, not students. It is distinct from the OECD’s “hasty readers” student classification. In the same period, the OECD average reading score fell 25 points. Source: OECD, reading trends 2018–2025, Table I.A1.12.
OECD students’ reported approach when they encounter scientific information · 2025
Another 37% say they check sources but rely on common sense; 11% do not check sources but trust scientific studies; 5% do neither. These self-reported profiles are not direct tests of whether students detect misinformation. Source: OECD, PISA 2025 Results, Volume I.
What we can conclude: PISA records a rise in rushed, unsuccessful reading responses and widespread reported AI use. The survey offers no evidence connecting the two. The open question is how students build comprehension and judge sources while using AI.
08 · School experience
PISA also asks students about home and school life. These figures add context to test scores, though they do not explain score changes by themselves.
Share reporting weekly family conversations · Portugal · 2022 and 2025
Asking about the school day fell from 84% to 73%; discussing school problems fell from 69% to 53%. The surveys represent different cohorts of 15-year-olds. Source: OECD, Portugal PISA 2025 country note.
Any reported bullying · Portugal and OECD average · 2025
Portugal’s reported rate is about 5 percentage points below the OECD average. This is self-reported exposure and does not say how severe or persistent each student’s experience was. Source: OECD, PISA 2025, Figure I.4.29.
Science score difference associated with each student-reported family-support item · OECD average · adjusted for socio-economic profile
This 26-point gap remains after adjustment. It is a cross-sectional association, not a gain caused by a conversation. Source: OECD, PISA 2025, Figure I.4.25 and Table I.B1.4.124.
Adjusted association between reported bullying experiences and science scores · OECD average
Students reporting that upsetting information about them had been shared online without consent scored 48 points lower on average. This adjusted association does not establish that bullying caused the difference. Source: OECD, PISA 2025, Figure I.4.31 and Table I.B1.4.144.
Portugal’s context is mixed: lower reported bullying than the OECD average sits alongside a marked fall in weekly family-school contact. The dashboard can show these changes and associations; it cannot establish that either explains Portugal’s score trajectory.
09 · Beyond test scores
That compares with 62% across the OECD. It is a stated interest, not a forecast of career choices. Source: OECD, Portugal PISA 2025 country note.
Share interested in environmental protection in a future job
A separate OECD survey of 15-year-olds connects extracurricular participation with reported social and emotional skills. It also shows that opportunities differ across students and places. These are contextual findings, not PISA scores or evidence that activities cause stronger skills.
Standardised regression coefficients · average and range across participating sites
Each dot is the cross-site average coefficient; each whisker spans the lowest to highest site estimate. These are coefficients, not PISA points, and the whiskers are not confidence intervals. The OECD models control for gender, socio-economic and migrant status. Emotional control has the smallest average coefficient and was associated with participation in 8 of 15 sites.
Source: OECD, SSES 2023, Figure 2.12 and Table A2.11 · download the underlying table.
Average participation rate and range across sites · percent
The dot is the average participation rate; the line spans the lowest and highest site rate. Participation and activity offers vary between sites.
Source: OECD, SSES 2023, Figure 2.13 and Table A2.9 · download the underlying table.