Skip to content
PISA 2022 · Education Finance

Education Spending and PISA 2022 Outcomes: Cross-Country Comparison

Cumulative expenditure per student from ages 6 to 15 is compared with PISA 2022 mathematics, reading, and science outcomes for 71 education systems with matched OECD data. The relationship is clearer below USD 75,000 in PPP-adjusted spending and nearly flat among systems above that level.

Assessment year: 2022 Spending reference: 2019, except Indonesia Unit: PPP-adjusted USD Coverage: 71 matched systems Main source: OECD

Cross-Country Snapshot

Published OECD indicators and page-level calculations based on systems with both expenditure and PISA outcome data.

Matched systems
71
35 below and 36 at or above USD 75,000.
OECD average spending
$102,612
Cumulative expenditure per student, ages 6–15.
Relationship threshold
$75,000
Observed OECD comparison point, not a funding target.
Variation explained below threshold
27%
Mathematics variation associated with expenditure differences.
Highest mathematics score
574.7
Singapore; cumulative spending $166,112.
Widest positive fit gap
+95.1
Viet Nam relative to the page-level segment fit.

The Spending–Mathematics Curve

Each point represents one participating education system with matched expenditure and mathematics data.

Cumulative Spending per Student and PISA 2022 Mathematics

Separate fitted lines show the change in the cross-country relationship below and above USD 75,000.

The lower-spending segment has an R² of 26.8%; the higher-spending segment has an R² of 0.6% in the matched dataset.

Spending analysis
  • 35 systems fall below USD 75,000; their mathematics scores range from 336.4 to 483.2.
  • The lower-spending fit explains 26.8% of score variation, closely matching the OECD’s reported 27% result.
  • 36 systems fall at or above USD 75,000; their mathematics scores span 414.1 to 574.7.
  • The fitted slope above the threshold is nearly flat; similarly high expenditure levels coexist with wide score differences.
  • Viet Nam is 95.1 points above its segment fit, while Qatar is 73.6 points below.
  • The chart describes association across systems. It does not estimate the effect of an additional dollar within a country.

Matched-System Spending and PISA Outcomes

Rank is based on the mathematics mean score within the 71-system matched dataset. Scores and percentages retain one decimal place.

RankSystemSpendRef. yearBandMathReadingScienceBelow L2L5–62018–22 ΔFit gapCoverage note
1Singapore$166,1122019≥75k574.7542.6561.48.0%40.5%+5.7+86.2Standard
2Macao (China)$195,5812019≥75k551.9510.4543.18.4%28.6%-5.7+61.1Standard
3Chinese Taipei$116,6202019≥75k547.1515.2537.414.6%31.7%+16.0+62.6Standard
4Hong Kong (China)$124,5562019≥75k540.4499.7520.413.8%27.2%-10.8+55.2PISA sampling caution
5Japan$101,3992019≥75k535.6515.9546.612.0%23.0%+8.6+52.3Standard
6Korea$144,4852019≥75k527.3515.4527.816.2%22.9%+1.4+40.6Standard
7Canada$121,6782019≥75k496.9507.1515.021.6%12.5%-15.1+12.0PISA sampling caution
8Netherlands$119,5842019≥75k492.7459.2488.327.4%15.4%-26.6+7.9PISA sampling caution
9Ireland$94,1672019≥75k491.6516.0503.819.0%7.2%-8.0+9.0PISA sampling caution
10Belgium$130,3442019≥75k489.5478.9490.625.0%11.5%-18.6+3.9Standard
11Denmark$130,6852019≥75k489.3488.8493.820.4%7.7%-20.1+3.7PISA sampling caution
12United Kingdom$123,9832019≥75k489.0494.4499.724.3%11.3%-12.8+3.9PISA sampling caution
13Poland$87,7412019≥75k489.0488.7499.223.0%9.4%-26.7+6.8Standard
14Austria$154,0672019≥75k487.3480.4491.324.9%10.3%-11.7-0.2Standard
15Australia$126,0202019≥75k487.1498.1507.026.3%12.3%-4.3+1.8PISA sampling caution
16Czech Republic$100,8352019≥75k487.0488.6497.725.5%10.6%-12.5+3.8Standard
17Slovenia$102,3362019≥75k484.5468.5500.024.6%9.4%-24.4+1.2Standard
18Finland$126,7772019≥75k484.1490.2511.024.9%8.6%-23.2-1.2Standard
19Latvia$68,7842019<75k483.2474.6493.822.2%6.4%-13.0+48.2PISA sampling caution
20Sweden$133,0252019≥75k481.8487.0493.527.2%10.0%-20.6-4.0Standard
21New Zealand$82,2612019≥75k479.1500.9504.128.8%10.3%-15.4-2.7PISA sampling caution
22Lithuania$72,1142019<75k475.1471.8484.527.8%7.2%-6.0+36.5Standard
23Germany$121,0622019≥75k474.8479.8492.429.5%8.6%-25.2-10.0Standard
24France$109,5842019≥75k473.9473.9487.228.8%7.4%-21.5-10.0Standard
25Spain$93,0942019≥75k473.1474.3484.527.3%5.9%not reported-9.5Standard
26Hungary$78,9692019≥75k472.8473.0485.929.5%7.8%-8.3-8.7Standard
27Portugal$98,9832019≥75k471.9476.6484.429.7%6.7%-20.6-11.2Standard
28Italy$105,7542019≥75k471.3481.6477.529.6%7.0%-15.3-12.4Standard
29Viet Nam$13,7732019<75k469.4461.9472.428.2%5.4%not reported+95.1Standard
30Norway$153,3352019≥75k468.4476.5478.231.5%6.9%-32.5-19.0Standard
31Malta$148,4892019≥75k466.0445.3465.632.6%7.2%-5.7-21.0Standard
32United States$143,3832019≥75k464.9503.9499.433.9%7.3%-13.4-21.8PISA sampling caution
33Slovak Republic$75,3002019≥75k464.0446.9462.333.2%7.3%-22.2-17.2Standard
34Croatia$75,0292019≥75k463.1475.5482.732.9%5.9%-1.1-18.1Standard
35Iceland$149,6372019≥75k458.9435.9446.934.1%4.9%-36.3-28.2Standard
36Israel$94,3532019≥75k457.9473.8464.837.3%8.4%-5.1-24.8Standard
37Türkiye$46,7092019<75k453.2456.1475.938.7%5.4%-0.4+42.5Standard
38Brunei Darussalam$207,3242019≥75k442.1429.2445.941.9%3.0%+12.0-49.7Standard
39Ukrainian regions (18 of 27)$37,7982019<75k440.8427.5450.242.4%3.3%not reported+40.018 of 27 regions
40Serbia$45,9632019<75k439.9440.4447.543.1%3.8%-8.4+30.1Standard
41Greece$71,5092019<75k430.1438.4440.847.2%2.0%-21.2-7.8Standard
42Romania$38,8842019<75k427.8428.5427.548.6%4.0%-2.2+25.7Standard
43Kazakhstan$29,8072019<75k425.4386.3423.249.6%1.6%+2.3+33.4Standard
44Mongolia$12,5762019<75k424.6378.4412.451.1%2.3%not reported+51.6Standard
45Cyprus$148,2022019≥75k418.3381.1410.953.2%3.9%-32.4-68.7Standard
46Bulgaria$54,1982019<75k417.3404.3421.053.6%3.1%-18.7-1.6Standard
47Moldova$35,6862019<75k414.2410.9416.955.8%1.3%-6.4+15.7Standard
48Qatar$157,2782019≥75k414.1419.3432.456.5%2.6%-0.1-73.6Standard
49Chile$60,6272019<75k411.7448.0443.555.7%0.6%-5.7-14.3Standard
50Uruguay$47,1872019<75k408.7430.4435.456.5%1.0%-8.9-2.4Standard
51Malaysia$50,6972019<75k408.7388.1416.359.0%1.1%-31.5-6.3Standard
52Baku (Azerbaijan)$16,2372019<75k396.9365.2380.161.9%0.8%-22.8+19.8Standard
53Mexico$28,9032019<75k395.0415.4409.965.8%0.2%-13.8+4.0Standard
54Peru$25,2762019<75k391.2408.2407.866.2%0.5%-8.6+4.2Standard
55Georgia$14,9502019<75k390.0373.9384.166.4%1.1%-7.6+14.4Standard
56North Macedonia$33,1492019<75k388.6358.5379.966.2%0.6%-5.9-7.1Standard
57Colombia$37,3152019<75k382.7408.7411.171.2%0.3%-8.2-17.6Standard
58Argentina$42,2382019<75k377.5400.7406.272.9%0.3%-1.9-28.2Standard
59Jamaica$21,8492019<75k377.4409.6402.973.8%0.1%not reported-5.8PISA sampling caution
60Albania$21,2672019<75k368.2358.4376.073.9%0.6%-69.0-14.4Standard
61Palestinian Authority$30,8912019<75k365.7349.2368.879.9%0.1%not reported-27.5Standard
62Indonesia$19,7162022<75k365.5358.6382.981.7%0.0%-13.1-15.4Spending reference 2022
63Morocco$24,9012019<75k364.8339.4365.481.6%0.0%-3.0-21.8Standard
64Uzbekistan$15,2862019<75k363.9335.5354.980.7%0.1%not reported-12.1Standard
65Jordan$20,9472019<75k361.2342.2374.582.8%0.0%-38.5-21.0Standard
66Panama$62,9712019<75k356.6392.0387.883.9%0.0%+3.7-72.0PISA sampling caution
67Philippines$11,0302019<75k354.7346.5356.284.0%0.1%+2.2-16.6Standard
68El Salvador$15,0972019<75k343.5364.9373.189.3%0.0%not reported-32.3Standard
69Dominican Republic$46,5172019<75k339.1351.3360.492.4%0.0%+14.0-71.3Standard
70Paraguay$18,7132019<75k337.5373.2368.385.5%0.0%+11.4-42.3Standard
71Cambodia$6692019<75k336.4328.8347.188.0%0.0%+11.7-23.5Standard
Table analysis
  • Singapore records the highest matched mathematics score at 574.7; Cambodia records 336.4.
  • Brunei Darussalam has the highest cumulative expenditure in the table at $207,324; its mathematics score is 442.1.
  • The share below mathematics Level 2 ranges from 8.0% in Singapore to 92.4% in Dominican Republic.
  • The Level 5–6 share reaches 40.5% in Singapore.
  • The largest reported 2018–2022 increase among matched systems is +16.0 points in Chinese Taipei.
  • The largest reported 2018–2022 decline is -69.0 points in Albania.
  • “Fit gap” equals the actual mathematics score minus the predicted score from the relevant spending segment; it is a page-level calculation.
  • “Sampling caution” preserves the OECD marker attached to selected PISA 2022 estimates.
  • Indonesia uses a 2022 spending reference in Table B3.2.2; the other matched expenditure values use 2019.
  • Missing trend values are displayed as “not reported” and are not imputed.

What Changes at USD 75,000

Two spending bands summarize the matched systems without treating the threshold as a recommended budget level.

Spending bandSystemsMedian spendMean mathMath rangeBelow L2L5–6Fit R²
Below USD 75,00035$30,891396.8336.4–483.263.6%1.5%26.8%
USD 75,000 or more36$122,831485.0414.1–574.727.2%11.7%0.6%
Spending analysis
  • Median cumulative expenditure is $30,891 below the threshold and $122,831 in the higher band.
  • Mean mathematics scores are 396.8 and 485.0 respectively; this is a cross-sectional difference, not an estimated spending effect.
  • The mean share below Level 2 is 63.6% in the lower band and 27.2% in the higher band.
  • Score dispersion remains wide in both groups, with a 160.6-point range among higher-spending systems.
  • The sharp difference between the two R² values shows why a single straight line is a poor description of the full distribution.

Performance Relative to Similar Spending Levels

Fit gaps compare each mathematics score with a separate linear estimate for its spending band.

Largest Positive and Negative Mathematics Fit Gaps

Positive values sit above the segment fit; negative values sit below it.

The comparison is descriptive and depends on the two-segment model used for this analysis.

Chart analysis
  • Viet Nam has the largest positive fit gap at +95.1 mathematics points.
  • Singapore follows at +86.2 points despite being in the higher-spending group.
  • Qatar has the largest negative fit gap at -73.6 points.
  • Positive residuals do not prove higher spending efficiency; family resources, system structure, participation, language, and other variables are not controlled.
  • Negative residuals do not identify waste; expenditure can cover services and cost structures not represented by one mean assessment score.

Mathematics Results Across PISA Cycles

Selected systems show why a 2022 cross-section should be read alongside assessment-cycle movement.

Selected Mathematics Score Series, 2003–2022

Missing points indicate cycles in which a comparable score is not reported in the selected OECD trend table.

The chart is a selected-system trend view; the matched-system table remains the cross-country source of record.

Trend analysis
  • Singapore rises from 562.0 in 2009 to 574.7 in 2022.
  • Japan is 8.6 points higher in 2022 than in 2018.
  • Chinese Taipei records the largest 2018–2022 increase in this selected group at +16.0 points.
  • Finland moves from 544.3 in 2003 to 484.1 in 2022.
  • Türkiye is broadly unchanged between 2018 and 2022, with a -0.4-point difference.
  • Assessment-cycle movement cannot be attributed to the single expenditure reference used in the cross-sectional chart.

Selected-System Assessment Cycle Table

PISA cycles are used rather than annual interpolation.

System20032006200920122015201820222018–22 Δ
Singaporenot assessednot assessed562.0573.5564.2569.0574.7+5.7
Japan534.1523.1529.0536.4532.4527.0535.6+8.6
Korea542.2547.5546.2553.8524.1525.9527.3+1.4
Chinese Taipeinot assessed549.4543.2559.8542.3531.1547.1+16.0
Finland544.3548.4540.5518.8511.1507.3484.1-23.2
United States482.9474.4487.4481.4469.6478.2464.9-13.4
Türkiye423.4423.9445.5448.0420.5453.5453.2-0.4
Colombianot assessed370.0380.8376.5389.6390.9382.7-8.2
Assessment analysis
  • The table uses official PISA cycle values and leaves non-participating or non-comparable cycles unfilled as “not assessed.”
  • Long-run paths differ within both spending bands; a high or low 2022 fit gap does not describe the direction of earlier cycles.
  • The 2018–2022 column uses the OECD’s reported difference rather than subtracting independently rounded values.

Interpretation Boundaries

The spending measure, proficiency distribution, timing, and system coverage shape the comparison.

Cumulative Spending Matches the Student Window

The main financial measure totals institutional expenditure across ages 6–15. A single annual budget or education spending as a share of GDP does not represent the same exposure period.

The Threshold Is Not a Target

USD 75,000 marks a change in the observed cross-country association. It does not specify an adequate budget, an optimal allocation, or a universal minimum.

Mean Scores Do Not Show the Full Distribution

The table includes the shares below mathematics Level 2 and at Levels 5–6. Systems with similar mean scores can have different proficiency profiles.

PPP Reduces, but Does Not Remove, Cost Differences

PPP conversion improves comparison of purchasing power. Teacher pay structures, geography, school size, construction costs, and service scope still differ.

Spending Coverage Includes Public and Private Sources

The OECD expenditure measure covers direct expenditure on educational institutions. Household tutoring and some goods purchased outside institutions are outside the indicator.

PISA 2025 Release Schedule

PISA 2022 remains the latest published full cycle. Initial PISA 2025 results are scheduled for 8 September 2026, after which the outcome comparison can be updated.

Source and Methodology

Expenditure source OECD, PISA 2022 Results Volume II, Table B3.2.2. The primary measure is total cumulative expenditure on educational institutions per student from ages 6 to 15, converted with GDP purchasing-power parities.
Outcome source OECD, PISA 2022 Results Volume I, Tables I.B1.2.1, I.B1.2.2, and I.B1.2.3 for mathematics, reading, and science mean scores.
Proficiency source OECD Table I.B1.3.1. “Below Level 2” sums the reported categories below the Level 2 threshold; “L5–6” sums Levels 5 and 6.
Trend source OECD Table I.B1.5.4. Assessment-cycle values are reported for 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2022 where available.
Reference periods PISA outcomes refer to 2022. Expenditure refers to 2019 for matched systems except Indonesia, whose source value refers to 2022.
Coverage 71 participating systems have both a reported cumulative expenditure value and all three PISA 2022 mean scores. Systems without matched expenditure are excluded rather than assigned a value.
Page-level calculation Two ordinary least-squares lines are fitted separately below USD 75,000 and at or above USD 75,000. Fit gap equals actual mathematics score minus the fitted value.
Rounding Spending is rounded to the nearest PPP-adjusted dollar. Scores, proficiency shares, changes, and fit gaps are shown to one decimal place.
Missing values No imputation is used. “Not reported” and “not assessed” identify unavailable trend observations in the selected official table.
Official reports PISA 2022 Results Volume I and PISA 2022 Results Volume II.
Dataset access OECD PISA 2022 Database.
Next assessment release OECD PISA programme schedule.

The OECD reports that expenditure differences account for about 27% of mathematics-score variation among the 35 systems below USD 75,000 and that the relationship is not present above that level. The replicated segment fit uses the 71 matched systems displayed in the main table.

Methodological Safety Note

Cross-country association does not establish causation. PISA estimates have sampling uncertainty, expenditure and assessment years differ, and the fit-gap measure does not control for income, student composition, family resources, institutional costs, or allocation choices. Mathematics rank applies only to the matched systems shown.

📚

Complete guide: Education Spending

Related Topics

Guides:Education Spending