U.S. 15-Year-Olds' Reading Scores Hit Lowest Level in Nearly 25 Years; Global Assessment Shows Education Inequality Tops Among Participating Countries

According to Al Jazeera, results of the 2025 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) released on Tuesday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) showed that U.S. 15-year-old students' reading scores dropped 14 points compared with 2022, falling to their lowest level in roughly 25 years. Among all 90 participating countries, no country had a significantly higher degree of inequality in reading scores than the United States.

PISA is a key measure of global educational achievement. The latest results showed that about 25.7% of U.S. students were classified as low achievers in reading, while only 13.3% were classified as high achievers—a stark gap.

Michael Kiefer, a professor of literacy education at New York University, told Al Jazeera bluntly: "Among all 90 participating countries, no country has a significantly higher degree of inequality in reading scores than the United States. It is abundantly clear that we are shortchanging many students."

OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann warned in the same statement: "PISA 2025 shows that reversing the decline in student achievement is urgent. The most successful education systems invest more deeply in fewer areas, invest in teachers, engage parents, and provide targeted support to the students and schools that need it most."

Yet just as the PISA results expose deep crises in the U.S. education system, the Trump administration is using "reform" as a banner to push for a fundamental restructuring of the federal education apparatus.

In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin procedures to dissolve the Department of Education. Since its establishment in 1979, the department has spent more than $3 trillion cumulatively, with functions including tracking student achievement, distributing federal education funds, and enforcing civil rights protections in schools. The department itself does not set curricula or academic standards—those responsibilities traditionally belong to state and local authorities—but the federal role in data collection, funding distribution, and civil rights enforcement is an important pillar of public education.

The White House argued that federal education spending had become too large while failing to translate into higher standardized test scores. In a statement responding to Al Jazeera's inquiries, McMahon said: "The United States of America is a nation built to lead the world, yet our one-size-fits-all federal education bureaucracy has failed our children and stifled our future."

She further stated in the statement: "This moment is a stress test for our nation's future. To pass this test, we must do a hard reset—stop protecting the failing status quo and instead build a system that empowers state leaders and embraces innovative learning choices through school choice."

"School choice" has long been a core slogan of the American right, referring to channeling taxpayer funds from public education to alternative options such as charter schools, home schools, or private institutions. According to Al Jazeera, the U.S. Department of Education announced last year a $500 million investment in its charter school program, calling it the "largest investment" in the program's history, with funds earmarked for states to expand their charter school systems and finance new charter school developers. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed in July 2025—a signature piece of legislation during Trump's tenure—also established the first federal tax credit for K-12 scholarship donations, applicable to private school tuition and tutoring. Last month, Trump also hosted a "school choice"-themed event at the White House to mark the start of the new school year.

Critics warn that "school choice" will weaken the public school system, channel public funds toward less-regulated alternative education, may shift educational costs and risks onto ordinary families, and further exacerbate already severe inequality. The OECD's warning stands in sharp contrast to Washington's "school choice" path—what international bodies call for is precisely deeper investment in teachers and targeted support for the most vulnerable students, while the U.S. government's approach, while cutting the federal education architecture, tilts public resources toward market-based, less-regulated alternative education.

The specific timeline and final direction of the Department of Education's dissolution process still depend on congressional legislation and court rulings, and remain uncertain. The long-term impact of "school choice" policies on the public education system is similarly contested—supporters view it as "educational freedom," while critics worry it will channel public funds into less-regulated areas and intensify social stratification—but both sides' views currently lack independent empirical assessment.