China is in an enviable position, creating a considerable distance above the US in the recent PISA 2025 rankings in terms of science literacy among 15-year-olds.
The students from the four participating jurisdictions in China have scored 597 in the science test and are in the top position globally. The US is in 13th position with an average science score of 502.
Thus, there is a gap of 95 points in the science literacy of 15-year-olds between China and the US.
These rankings are based on the most recent Programme for International Student Assessment, aimed at assessing the 15-year-old population in mathematics, reading, and science.
However, rather than testing their factual knowledge in science, the science test measures their abilities to explain, evaluate, and analyse science-related situations.
More than 760,000 students from 91 countries and economies have taken part in the PISA 2025 test, totalling 33 million 15-year-olds worldwide.
China's ranking is especially strong among those from Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang, the four jurisdictions taking part in PISA 2025.
China’s science score stands out globally
Not only was China's 597 score higher than that of the US. It put China ahead of all the other systems in the rankings.
Following the Chinese provinces and municipalities was Singapore with 560 points, Macao with 541 points, Taiwan with 540 points and Japan with 538 points. The highest-scoring European country in this table was Estonia in sixth place with 527 points; South Korea followed with 526.
The US still had a score higher than the OECD average - 502 points compared to the OECD average of 482 points. However, the gap between the American score and the leading Asian countries' scores was quite big.
This trend was not restricted to science. As stated in the provided PISA analysis, China, Singapore, Japan and South Korea demonstrated outstanding results in the area of science, mathematics and reading.
These figures indicate a general distinction between the students' achievements in different subjects, and not just a science ranking.
However, PISA scores cannot be used as proof of what causes the difference in performance between education systems. PISA measures students' achievements, but does not identify the reason behind them.
What separates the top Asian systems?
Another aspect emphasised in the PISA survey is the incidence of digital distractions reported in the classroom.
In China, Japan, and South Korea, fewer than 10% of the students reported that their peers in class were frequently or always distracted by digital devices throughout their science lessons. The incidence of such distraction among students in OECD nations is 28%.
Moreover, the OECD report shows that there is a connection between clear school policies on the use of smartphones and low rates of reported digital distraction.
There is also a contrast at the level of high performers. For example, while in Singapore 26% of students attained the top two levels of proficiency in science, only 7% did so among OECD students.
Tutoring and high academic expectations, as well as discipline in class and the establishment of school policies on smartphone use are some common practices in certain areas of East Asia. Nevertheless, the PISA survey cannot attribute the superior scores to any specific practice.
There is also a correlation between socio-economic factors and academic performance. Certain of the best-performing Asian educational systems have weaker connections between socio-economic factors and performance in science.
Where the US stands against other countries
A score of 502 for the US puts American students ahead of the OECD average but still way behind the highest-ranking systems.
The results for Canada and Australia were 510 and 509, respectively, while New Zealand came in with 509 points. With a score of 511, the UK was one of those countries that fell within a fairly narrow range in relation to the US.
However, the comparison between the US and China is quite another story.
A score of 597 for China is 95 points above the US. The gap is big enough to show how distant from each other these two countries appear in the ranking of all nations, despite having very large and diverse education systems in both of them.
This ranking still needs to be viewed critically, however. Scores in PISA tests represent the performance of students in jurisdictions included in this test. China's score includes such provinces as Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang and not the whole country.
The OECD also warns that slight differences between countries in the same range may not be statistically significant, which applies to those countries with very close scores on this chart.
The bigger story behind the PISA results
This contrast is in relation to more general underperformance of science amongst OECD countries.
Indeed, the average score of OECD countries in science in PISA 2025 is the worst it has ever been, implying deterioration in performance of the students. While most of the students in OECD countries succeeded in gaining at least minimum proficiency in science, the trend is indeed worrying, as shown in the assessment.
The contrast in performance becomes even more apparent when compared to those of the top-scoring jurisdictions.
For instance, the US gained 502 and is thus above the OECD average. Nevertheless, the US is not one of the best in the PISA 2025 science ranking. In turn, China earned 597 and thus became number one in the ranking.
The scores give an indication of how well the students did in an international exam. Still, the scores alone are not enough to be able to understand the reasons for the contrast and the education policies which led to such results.
The thing we see from the scores is that the contrast between the US and the jurisdiction of China in PISA 2025 in science is 95 points.
