Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluating PISA results requires consideration of academic achievement, equity, and students’ learning contexts to identify priorities for educational improvement. This study critically examines Indonesia’s PISA 2025 results and their implications for improving educational quality. A document-based critical review of the PISA 2025 country note for Indonesia, supported by comparative literature, examined achievement trends, proficiency distributions, socioeconomic disparities, and students’ learning contexts. The findings show mean scores of 389 in science, 365 in reading, and 364 in mathematics, all below the OECD averages. Changes from 2022 were not statistically significant. Approximately 63% of students performed below Level 2 in science, 73% in reading, and 83% in mathematics, while almost none reached Levels 5–6. The socioeconomic gap in science performance was smaller than the OECD average but should be interpreted alongside low overall attainment. Students reported relatively high curiosity and help-seeking tendencies, whereas only 30% held a growth mindset and 24% reported experiencing bullying at least a few times a month. These findings suggest that stable performance does not provide strong evidence of structural improvement. Educational priorities should include strengthening foundational reading, numeracy, and scientific literacy from primary education, improving instructional quality, and creating safe and supportive school environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: