The OECD PISA 2025 Report
More than 760,000 students, representing around 33 million 15-year-olds across 91 participating countries and economies (including Australia), took the “Programme for International Student Assessment” (PISA) in 2025. This cycle focused on science, alongside reading, mathematics and computational problem solving.
Digital learning is mainstream, but technology and online teaching are different things. PISA separately examines devices, AI and real time online instruction. 1
Student needs differ widely. The right subject, teacher and support will not always be available inside a student’s own school. 2
Cross school teaching is already operating in public education systems. It is being used to widen subject access, overcome timetable constraints and form viable classes. 3
Teacher shortages are widespread and can be highly specialised. A school may be staffed overall but still lack the particular qualified teacher a student needs. 4
The teacher remains central. Sagecool leaves teachers free to combine live teaching, student led sessions and independent work as they choose. 5
Live online group teaching is already significant. Seventeen per cent of OECD students report real time online group science lessons as additional instruction. 6
Technology works best when it is purposeful. Moderate educational use is associated with better outcomes than excessive, distracting or mainly leisure use. 7
More spending is not enough. Above about US$85,000 per student, the relationship between spending and science performance becomes much less clear. 8
Measurement must go beyond test scores. PISA also examines teacher support, curiosity, perseverance, help seeking, goal setting, growth mindset and belonging. 9
In September 2026 the OECD released the first volume of results, Future-Ready Students. Nine findings stand out for Sagecool:
Read the full response
The full report sets out what PISA 2025 says about digital learning, live online teaching, teacher access and cross-school curriculum provision, with the sources behind each finding.
- OECD, PISA 2025 Assessment and Analytical Framework, 2026, Chapter 3, especially pp. 102–106; Sagecool, PISA 2025: A Sagecool Response, pp. 2–3, sources [1]–[4]. The Framework defines Learning in the Digital World separately from the PISA survey measure of real time online instruction.[1]↩
- Andreas Schleicher, PISA 2025: Insights and Interpretations, 2026, pp. 10–12 and 31–45; Sagecool response, pp. 4–5 and 8. PISA reports the widest recorded gap between high and low performers and substantial differences in student learning characteristics; the cross school matching implication is Sagecool’s interpretation.[2]↩
- Sagecool response, pp. 4–5, sources [14]–[20]. The examples are e-Sgoil in Scotland, Newfoundland and Labrador CDLI, Texas Virtual School Network, NSW Aurora College, Virtual School Victoria and New Zealand’s Te Kura.[3]↩
- OECD, PISA 2025 Results Volume I, Chapter 4, Tables I.B1.4.71, I.B1.4.72 and I.B1.4.78; Sagecool response, pp. 5–6, sources [11]–[13]. Around four in ten OECD students are in schools reporting that insufficient teaching staff hinder instruction and around one quarter report inadequate or poorly qualified staff.[4]↩
- OECD, PISA 2025 Results Volume I, Chapter 4, Figure I.4.23 and Tables I.B1.4.117–118; Schleicher, Insights and Interpretations, pp. 55–57 and 63–65; Sagecool response, pp. 5 and 8, sources [5], [28], [29], [33] and [34]. Sagecool’s teacher controlled class structure is described explicitly in the report.[5]↩
- OECD, PISA 2025 Results Volume I, Chapter 4, Tables I.B1.4.104–I.B1.4.106; Sagecool response, p. 4, source [4]. The 17% figure concerns additional science instruction rather than ordinary timetable classes.[6]↩
- Schleicher, PISA 2025: Insights and Interpretations, pp. 25–29 and 55–57; OECD, PISA 2025 Results Volume I, Chapter 4, Figures I.4.5–I.4.7 and Tables I.B1.4.33, I.B1.4.35 and I.B1.4.44; Sagecool response, pp. 2–3 and 7.[7]↩
- Schleicher, PISA 2025: Insights and Interpretations, pp. 67–68; OECD PISA 2025 Database, Tables I.B1.2a.1 and I.B3.2.2; Sagecool response, pp. 7–8, source [8].[8]↩
- OECD, PISA 2025 Results Volume I, Chapter 3; Schleicher, PISA 2025: Insights and Interpretations, especially pp. 31–45 and 63–66; Sagecool response, p. 8, source [29].[9]↩