Allan Alach – So New Zealand Students Have Improved in PISA results? Not that Simple!

You may have seen news articles about the PISA international test results, such as this one from RNZ, highlighting a supposed improvement in results by New Zealand students. A word of warning here, take this with a large dollop of salt.

NZ science and maths students turn around 20 years of decline in international tests

‘New Zealand’s science and maths scores in the international Pisa tests for 15-year-olds have improved or stabilised after more than 20 years of decline.

– Advertisement –

This country’s average score in science improved from 504 to 509 points, and in maths by a single point to 480.

In reading, New Zealand reached a new low of 497, a small drop of four points caused by a fall in boys’ scores.

The changes were considered statistically insignificant, but the science and maths results would be regarded as good news following successive declines that left reading 32 points adrift of a high recorded in the early-2000s, maths down 43 points, and science 23 points.’

The best that can be said of these findings is at least they didn’t show a down turn, however there is so much more to these than simplistic test scores.

The most important thing to consider is the validity of this testing programme, after all what is the point of basing the success or otherwise of your education system on a test of dubious validity?

And it is indeed dubious. It is not hard to find critiques of PISA, for example renowned educator Yong Zhao wrote at length about this in 2019.

The PISA Illusion

‘PISA is a masterful magician. It has successfully created an illusion of education quality and marketed it to the world. In 2018, 79 countries took part in this magic show out of the belief that this triennial test accurately measures the quality of their education systems, the effectiveness of their teachers, the ability of their students, and the future prosperity of their society.’

The article discusses the background to PISA and the claims made. For example,

‘To make the offer even better, PISA makes another seductive claim to education policy makers: “By directly testing for knowledge and skills close to the end of basic schooling, OECD/PISA examines the degree of preparedness of young people for adult life and, to some extent, the effectiveness of education systems,” (OECD, 1999, p. 11). To paraphrase, PISA not only tells you if your children are prepared for future life, but also tells you that you have control over it through improving “the effectiveness of education.” Thus, “if schools and education systems are to be encouraged to focus on modern challenges,” PISA is needed.’

But the claims made are disputable.

‘However, the claim, the foundation upon which PISA has built its success, has been seriously challenged. First, there is no evidence to justify, let alone prove, the claim that PISA indeed measures skills that are essential for life in modern economies. Second, the claim is an imposition of a monolithic and West-centric view of societies on the rest of the world. Third, the claim distorts the purpose of education.

Made-up Claim

The claim that PISA measures knowledge and skills essential for the modern society or the future world is not based on any empirical evidence. Professor Stefan Hopmann of the University of Vienna writes:

There is no research available that proves this assertion beyond the point that knowing something is always good and knowing more is better. There is not even research showing that PISA covers enough to be representative of the school subjects involved or the general knowledge-base. PISA items are based on the practical reasoning of its researchers and on pre-tests of what works in most or all settings – and not on systematic research on current or future knowledge structures and needs. (Hopmann, 2008, p. 438).

In other words, the claim was just a fantasy, an illusion, entirely made up by the PISA team. But PISA keeps repeating its assertion that measures skills needed for the future. The strategy worked. PISA successfully convinced people through repetition.’

 

There is much more in the article but I won’t discuss that here. The point I’m making is that while the results are always interesting, it is far too simplistic to base any evaluation of New Zealand education on a very narrow set of results. This goes way beyond the need to grab a headline as RNZ and other media have done. 

The same applies to politicians, who over many years have seized upon PISA results as either proof of success of current policies or to justify changes in policy. 

To preempt current politicians seizing on these results as proof of success of current education policies  (not mentioning any names…) the students who tested started school a decade or so ago. Quite obviously their success, or lack of, had nothing to do with today’s knowledge based curriculum and direct teaching programmes. 

In fact to be clear here, the bulk of these students learning occurred during the time in office of the 2017 – 2023 Labour led governments, and, more importantly, using the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum developed by the Labour led government from 2000 to 2008.

The following article, by Sarah Aioni and the  Aotearoa Educators Collective, discusses the results of the recent PISA tests.

Before We Credit the Reforms, Look at Who PISA Actually Tested

‘After a long period of decline, our results appear to have stabilised. Science has improved slightly since 2022, mathematics has barely moved, and reading has dipped. New Zealand remains above the OECD average across all three areas.

Some of the less obvious findings caught my attention more.

The achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students has narrowed across reading, mathematics and science. Students reported greater persistence when learning became difficult and placed more value on school than the cohort tested in 2022. New Zealand students also performed particularly strongly in computational problem-solving.’

Better than a drastic deterioration, yay aren’t we doing well. 

However,

‘There is an important caveat to all of this. New Zealand did not meet the OECD participation requirements for PISA 2025. Only 52 percent of selected schools and 76 percent of selected students participated. The Government’s own release acknowledges that this may make our results look more positive than they would in a fully representative sample.’

If the sample is not representative, then the results lack validity. Not rocket science.

‘A student who was 15 when PISA was administered in 2025 was born around 2009 or 2010 and probably started school around 2014 or 2015.

For most of their education, the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum provided the framework for their learning.

They began school during the National Standards era and were still in primary school when those standards were removed. Their curriculum took a deliberately broad view of learning. Alongside the traditional learning areas sat the key competencies: thinking, managing self, relating to others, participating and contributing, and using language, symbols and texts.

The 2007 curriculum also gave schools considerable scope to develop local curriculum around the communities they served. Over the years this cohort was at school, increasing attention was given to culturally responsive practice and to the relationship between identity, language, culture and learning. Te Tiriti o Waitangi became more visible within curriculum and professional conversations.

Then COVID arrived, disrupting the later primary and intermediate years for many of these students.’

The 2007 New Zealand Curriculum was a world leading document, of immense potential. The implementation of it was handicapped by yet another National led government’s attempt to standardise education through their ill advised National Standards programme which predictably failed, however teachers were still able to use the opportunities provided by the curriculum.

In 2023 the government changed as did the education agenda.

‘The current Government’s education reform programme began in 2024 and accelerated through 2025. Several of its most prominent early changes were directed at primary and intermediate students.

From the beginning of 2024, schools were required to provide an average of an hour a day for each of reading, writing and mathematics. That requirement applied to Years 0–8.’

The students who were tested in this PISA programme were already about 14 and so the changes in the education agenda had no effect at all on their results.

‘Their early reading instruction happened years before the structured literacy mandate. Their foundational mathematics learning occurred under previous curriculum settings. By the time many of the Government’s headline teaching reforms were reaching classrooms, these young people were teenagers.’

Ponder on this: the supposed justification for Erica Stanford’s education agenda was that our students were failing at school. But this is contradicted by the PISA results, even if they are not that representative.  

‘Most of what PISA measured in these young people had developed over the preceding decade.’

Indeed. 

It is clear though, that over decades New Zealand testing results have been a concern – I recall Trevor Mallard, when he was Minister of Education in the early 2000s, expressing his concerns. Why has this happened? 

Sarah discusses this at length in her article which I encourage you to read in full.

‘New Zealand is part of a much wider international pattern. PISA 2025 shows reading and mathematics performance across OECD countries at the lowest average levels PISA has recorded. Average reading performance across the OECD has fallen 28 points since 2015, while mathematics has fallen 22 points.

These countries do not share one curriculum. They use different approaches to pedagogy and assessment, within different political and cultural contexts.

Something larger is happening.

The OECD has already acknowledged that the decline predates COVID and cannot be explained by pandemic disruption alone. Its work has begun exploring wider changes in the lives of young people, including technology use and the possible relationships between smartphones, social media, attention, sleep and adolescent wellbeing.’

The key point here is that regardless of politicians game playing for political advantage, this is not solely a New Zealand problem.

‘The 2007 New Zealand Curriculum described its key competencies as capabilities young people needed to “live and learn today and in the future”. Ministry guidance went further, recognising that changes in society, technology and knowledge meant acquiring knowledge and mastering skills would no longer be sufficient. Students needed opportunities to become users of knowledge across different contexts.

That language feels remarkably current in 2026.

PISA now tells us New Zealand students performed particularly strongly in computational problem-solving. They also report greater persistence when learning becomes difficult and a stronger sense that school is developing skills useful for their lives.’

A subtext of the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum was to create life long learners, acknowledging that learning continues far beyond anything learnt at school. Again, that is self evident.

Compare this with the very narrow knowledge base of Stanford’s beloved knowledge based curriculum. 

Historically, New Zealand PISA results showed a wide discrepancy between ‘advantaged’ and ‘disadvantaged’ students – the long tail that Mallard talked about. As frequently discussed, one of the biggest drivers of educational achievement is the socioeconomic background of students. 

‘Across OECD countries, the socioeconomic achievement gap also narrowed between 2022 and 2025. The OECD reports that this was largely because advantaged students performed less well, rather than because disadvantaged students improved.

We need more detailed New Zealand data before we know what sits behind our own result. Our participation problem adds further uncertainty.

I am therefore interested in the narrowing gap without being ready to claim it as evidence of improved equity.’

Sarah’s next section is illuminating, especially in light of this government’s strident anti-Måori agenda.

‘During their schooling, New Zealand invested considerable effort in understanding the relationship between culture, identity and learning. Māori educational success became increasingly prominent within policy and professional learning. Schools were encouraged to know their communities and develop local curriculum responsive to them. Te Tiriti became more visible within curriculum development, with Te Mātaiaho intended to take that direction further.’

Sarah concludes:

‘We need enough humility to work out the difference before declaring victory during an election campaign. These results belong first to the young people who achieved them, and to the decade of schooling that brought them to this point. There will be time to judge the success of the current reforms when the children who have actually experienced them reach 15. Until then, PISA 2025 deserves to be understood for what it is: a picture of this particular cohort, shaped overwhelmingly by the education that came before.’

To reiterate:

These PISA results, be they good or bad, have nothing to do with Erica Stanford and her sweeping changes to New Zealand education.

It would seem that these were educational unnecessary and instead are indicative of a different agenda.

We all know whose agenda she is implementing.