The latest PISA results sharpen the contrast between Singapore and Finland. In PISA 2025, Singapore remained one of the two highest-performing education systems across science, mathematics, and reading. It ranked first in reading and second in both science and mathematics, behind B-S-J-Z (China) in those two domains. Finland remained above the OECD average in all three subjects, although its mathematics and reading scores fell from 2022 while science was broadly stable. The two systems therefore remain useful comparisons for different reasons: Singapore combines very high average performance with large shares of top performers, while Finland continues to pair above-average results with teacher autonomy, broad public provision, and relatively limited socio-economic influence on science performance. [Source-1✅]
What the Latest OECD Data Shows
- In Singapore, 15-year-olds scored 563 in mathematics, 535 in reading, and 560 in science in PISA 2025. The OECD averages were 463, 461, and 482 respectively. [Source-2✅]
- In Finland, students scored 469 in mathematics, 474 in reading, and 504 in science. Finland remained above the OECD average in all three domains. [Source-3✅]
- Computational problem solving was also reported in PISA 2025. Singapore scored 563 and Finland 507, both above the OECD average of 500. The separate PISA 2022 creative-thinking assessment remains useful for another dimension: Singapore scored 41 and Finland 36. [Source-4✅]
Why These Two Systems Still Draw Attention
PISA is not a school exam tied to one national syllabus. It measures how well 15-year-olds can apply knowledge, interpret information, reason through unfamiliar problems, and use what they have learned in new contexts. PISA 2025 placed science at the centre of the assessment while continuing to measure mathematics and reading and adding computational problem solving. [Source-5✅]
Singapore and Finland follow different operating models. Singapore combines very high averages, high basic-proficiency rates, and large shares of top performers with centrally developed curriculum expectations and structured teacher preparation. Finland combines above-average outcomes with nearby public schools, teacher autonomy, local curriculum design, and broad student services. PISA 2025 also makes clear that neither system is static: Singapore’s mathematics and reading results were lower than in 2022, while Finland continued a longer decline in those domains. [Source-6✅]
Why Singapore Remains Near the Very Top
- It combines high basic proficiency with a large top-performing group. In PISA 2025 mathematics, 89% of Singapore’s students reached at least Level 2 and 37% reached Levels 5 or 6. In science, 90% reached Level 2 or higher and 26% were top performers. In reading, 86% reached at least Level 2 and 22% reached Level 5 or above. Singapore therefore has both broad proficiency and substantial top-end depth. [Source-7✅]
- Socio-economic gaps coexist with strong performance among disadvantaged students. In science, advantaged students in Singapore outscored disadvantaged students by 91 points, compared with an OECD average gap of 85 points. Socio-economic status accounted for 12% of the variation in science performance, equal to the OECD average. OECD also reports that the science gap between Singapore’s top and bottom socio-economic quarters narrowed between 2015 and 2025 because performance improved among disadvantaged students while remaining stable among advantaged students. [Source-8✅]
- Help-seeking is common among students. PISA 2025 reports that 86% of students in Singapore ask their teachers for help when they need it and 91% ask classmates when they do not fully understand something. The OECD also found a positive relationship between help-seeking and science performance after accounting for the socio-economic profile of students and schools. [Source-9✅]
- The system has changed how students are grouped by subject. Singapore’s Ministry of Education places formal weight on values, social-emotional development, and 21st century competencies alongside academic learning. Full Subject-Based Banding has replaced the older secondary streaming structure, allowing students to take subjects at different levels according to their strengths and needs and moving the system toward a common national examination and certification route. [Source-10✅]
Creative thinking adds another measure to Singapore’s profile. In the separate PISA 2022 creative-thinking assessment, Singapore recorded the highest mean score, 41. Six in ten students reached the top two proficiency levels, while only 6% were in the low-performing group. These results show that Singapore’s strong performance extends beyond the traditional mathematics, reading, and science domains measured in that cycle. [Source-11✅]
Why Finland Still Matters So Much
- Finland built a universal public platform around equality of access. Primary and lower secondary education is free of charge, and pupils receive free learning materials, free daily school meals, health and welfare services, and transport when the journey is long or unsafe. Every pupil is allocated a place in a nearby school, while all schools work within a national core curriculum. That reduces several household-level barriers to school participation. [Source-12✅]
- Teacher quality in Finland is tied to training and professional trust. Teachers are generally required to hold a Master’s degree, their initial education includes teaching practice, and the system gives them broad freedom over methods and learning materials. Finland’s Ministry of Education and Culture describes trust in teachers and teacher education as a defining feature of the system, with wide room for professional judgment at local level. [Source-13✅]
- The curriculum is national in direction but local in execution. Finland’s national core curriculum provides a shared base, while municipalities and schools prepare local curricula within it. The curriculum also includes transversal competences, pupil participation, multidisciplinary learning modules, and support intended to help pupils succeed in schoolwork. The model combines national expectations with local professional decision-making. [Source-14✅]
- Finland remains above OECD averages while socio-economic status explains a smaller share of science-performance variation. In PISA 2025, Finland scored 504 in science, 474 in reading, and 469 in mathematics. Socio-economic status accounted for 9% of variation in science performance, compared with 12% across OECD countries. The science-score gap between Finland’s advantaged and disadvantaged quarters was 78 points, below the OECD average of 85 points, and 13% of disadvantaged students reached the top national quarter of science performance. [Source-15✅]
The latest results also show the pressure on Finland’s model. Mathematics and reading performance fell between 2022 and 2025, while science remained about the same. OECD reports that Finland’s 2025 results in all three subjects were lower than in any assessment before 2022, extending a long decline from earlier PISA peaks. Finland therefore no longer belongs near the centre of international education debate because it tops the score table. Its current relevance comes from the combination of above-average outcomes, lower-than-OECD socio-economic influence on science results, broad public provision, and a teaching profession built around graduate-level preparation and autonomy. [Source-16✅]
Finland’s earlier creative-thinking results add another dimension. In the OECD’s PISA 2022 creative-thinking assessment, Finland performed above the OECD average, and 39% of Finnish 15-year-olds reached Levels 5 or 6, compared with an OECD average of 27%. The result shows that Finland’s strengths have extended beyond conventional subject scores even as its mathematics and reading averages have weakened over time. [Source-17✅]
Singapore and Finland Compared
The two systems differ in governance, curriculum design, student pathways, and teacher autonomy. Their latest PISA profiles also differ more sharply than they did during Finland’s earlier high-scoring years.
| Dimension | Singapore | Finland |
|---|---|---|
| Main PISA profile in 2025 | Highest reading score; second-highest mathematics and science scores | Above OECD average in mathematics, reading, and science, with science remaining the strongest of the three domains |
| Science score | 560 | 504 |
| Mathematics score | 563 | 469 |
| Reading score | 535 | 474 |
| Computational problem solving | 563 | 507 |
| System profile | Very high average performance with large shares of top performers | Above-average achievement combined with broad public provision and lower socio-economic influence on science performance |
| Teacher model | Central preparation, mentored practicum, and structured professional development | Master’s-level preparation, high professional autonomy, and local decision-making |
| Curriculum direction | Strong academic base plus values, social-emotional growth, and future competencies | National core curriculum plus local curricula, transversal competences, and multidisciplinary learning |
| Approach to student difference | Flexible subject levels through Full Subject-Based Banding | Single-structure basic education with broad student support |
Singapore is not defined only by examination performance. Official documents also stress holistic education, values, safe learning environments, adaptive teaching, and future competencies. Finland is not defined only by autonomy or a lighter testing culture. It has national curricular aims, structured support services, and demanding teacher-education requirements. Their governance models differ, but both connect curriculum, teacher preparation, and student support across the school system. [Source-18✅]
What the Score Averages Do Not Show
1) Mean Scores and Proficiency Levels Describe Different Things
A high national mean does not show how students are distributed across proficiency levels. Singapore combines very high averages with 89% of students reaching at least Level 2 in mathematics, 90% in science, and 86% in reading. Finland’s corresponding 2025 minimum-proficiency shares were 69% in mathematics, 81% in science, and 74% in reading. Distribution data therefore show how widely basic proficiency reaches beyond the headline mean. [Source-19✅]
2) Both Systems Are Changing
Singapore has replaced its older secondary streaming model with Full Subject-Based Banding and continues to place formal emphasis on future-oriented competencies. Finland’s current curriculum gives greater weight to pupil participation, multiliteracy, transversal competence, multidisciplinary learning, and local adaptation. PISA results also show movement in performance itself: Singapore’s mathematics and reading scores fell between 2022 and 2025, while Finland recorded lower mathematics and reading scores and broadly stable science performance over the same period. [Source-20✅]
3) Teacher Capacity Sits Close to the Centre of Both Models
Singapore’s teacher pipeline includes formal preparation and supervised practicum through the National Institute of Education. Finland’s model depends on graduate-level preparation and broad professional discretion in schools. The governance style differs, but both systems place sustained teacher preparation and professional capacity close to day-to-day instructional quality. [Source-21✅]
Why Finland and Singapore Remain Useful Reference Points
- Both systems show that public education can produce above-average cognitive outcomes.
- Both connect curriculum, teacher preparation, and student support rather than treating them as isolated parts of schooling.
- Singapore combines unusually high proficiency rates with a large top-performing group, while Finland continues to show a lower-than-OECD association between socio-economic status and science performance.
- Both have expanded the areas considered part of student development, including creative thinking, digital skills, student attitudes, and future-oriented competencies.
- The latest results also show that neither system is immune to decline: mathematics and reading performance fell from 2022 to 2025 in both countries.
Singapore remains near the top of PISA because it combines high proficiency rates, large shares of advanced performers, structured curriculum expectations, and strong instructional support. Finland remains relevant for a different reason. Its 2025 scores are no longer close to the global leaders, but they remain above OECD averages, while socio-economic status explains a smaller share of science-performance variation than across the OECD as a whole. Finland also retains a public model built around graduate-trained teachers, local curricular responsibility, nearby schools, and broad student services. The latest PISA cycle therefore makes the contrast clearer: Singapore represents one of the highest-performing systems in the current data, while Finland remains an important example of how equity, public provision, and professional teacher autonomy operate inside an above-average education system. [Source-22✅]