Fact check: How does American education performance compare to other developed countries?

1. What people are claiming — and where the facts start the story

Multiple high-profile claims assert that the U.S. is either a global education leader or is “last in education.” The data show neither extreme: the U.S. does not occupy the bottom of international rankings nor does it top them consistently. Key statements to extract are that the U.S. ranks low in math but better in reading and science, that the nation spends very heavily per pupil, and that inequality within the system — wide score gaps between high- and low-percentile students — is a central problem ^{[5] [6] [2]}. Fact-checking pieces have explicitly contradicted hyperbolic political claims while acknowledging high per-pupil expenditures relative to other OECD systems ^[5]. The truth is nuanced: average scores are middling to above average depending on domain, but distributional issues and subgroup gaps are large and persistent.

2. International test results: PISA delivers a mixed portrait

PISA 2022 places U.S. 15-year-olds roughly at OECD average in mathematics and above average in reading and science, with percentages attaining proficiency showing the same pattern: roughly two-thirds reach math Level 2 while higher shares reach reading and science benchmarks ^{[1] [6]}. National highlights interpret these results as evidence that U.S. students are not catastrophically behind but face specific weaknesses in mathematics literacy relative to top-performing countries and strengths in reading and science when compared to OECD peers ^[7]. Analysts frame PISA as a snapshot of system-level performance that reveals competence on average but important weaknesses — especially when looking beyond means to proficiency cutoffs and the tails of the distribution ^[1].

3. Early grades and trends: TIMSS shows patterns and persistent gaps

TIMSS 2023 reports on fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics and science and shows varying trajectories: U.S. performance has moved over time but remains heterogeneous by grade and subject. The international TIMSS release highlights that many countries have comparable shares meeting low benchmarks, while gender gaps (notably in grade 4 math) and socioeconomic influences are rising concerns ^{[8] [4]}. The U.S. TIMSS brief emphasizes that changes since 2019 and over 30 years provide context — there is progress in some areas and stagnation or decline in others — and that cross-national comparisons must account for cohort, curriculum, and sampling differences ^[4]. In short, TIMSS underscores that American strengths and weaknesses appear early and are linked to broader demographic and resource patterns.

4. Money, equity, and the policy story: Spending is high but outcomes uneven

The U.S. spends among the highest amounts per pupil in international comparisons — often ranked in the top three to five depending on the measure — yet this high spending does not translate into uniformly superior outcomes. Multiple reports note high cost per pupil alongside substantial within-country inequality, including achievement gaps across socioeconomic groups and wide score disparities between percentiles ^{[3] [2]}. Fact-checking of political claims about being “No. 1 in cost per pupil” finds the U.S. spends a lot but is not always the single highest spender and certainly not the top performer on international assessments ^[5]. The implication for policy is that targeting resources to equity, early childhood, and instructional quality may matter more than aggregate spending alone.

5. Synthesis, limitations, and what readers should watch next

Taken together, international assessments portray the U.S. as a middling-average system with notable strengths and persistent inequities: relatively strong reading and science outcomes at age 15, weaker average math outcomes, and mixed early-grade performance with demographic gaps evident ^{[1] [4] [2]}. Comparisons across systems are complicated by differences in curricula, participation, and how poverty and segregation interact with schooling. Recent reports through 2025 converge on the same policy-relevant conclusions: fix distributional problems, focus on math attainment, and align investments to boost equity and instructional effectiveness. Watch subsequent PISA and TIMSS releases and follow disaggregated data for subgroup trends, since averages mask the important stories in the tails ^{[7] [8]}.