- Fifteen-year-old students in Latvia and the context in which they learn
- How well did 15-year-old students in Latvia do on the test?
- Performance gaps within Latvia
- Student attitudes towards school and learning in Latvia
- How is school life in Latvia?
- Student readiness for environmental challenges
- Key Features of PISA 2025 in Latvia
PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): Latvia
Table of contents
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assesses the knowledge, skills and attitudes of 15-year-old students. The tests explore how well students can solve complex problems, think critically and communicate effectively; data collected through questionnaires describe the context in which students learn. This gives insights into how well education systems are preparing students for real life challenges and future success. Latvia has participated in PISA since 2000. By comparing results internationally, policy makers and educators in Latvia can learn from other countries’ policies and practices.
Notes: Due to missing data, not all countries and economies are included in every dimension. For each dimension, the top country/economy and the OECD average are highlighed; truancy values are sorted in descending order, so that values shown to the right correspond to lower levels of truancy.
For indicators derived from students’ and principals’ reports, differences between countries and economies should be interpreted with caution, as they may reflect variations in response behaviour rather than true underlying differences. Non-response to questionnaires, cultural norms, as well as differing interpretations of questions can influence these indicators.
Definitions: Values that are not reported as percentages correspond to mean values of the corresponding questionnaire indices. Percentages are defined as follows: Percentage of students scoring above a baseline level of proficiency: students scoring at or above Level 2 in science, mathematics and reading; at or above Level 3 in computational problem solving; Growth mindset: Percentage of students who disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you really can’t do much to change it”; Value of learning at school: Percentage of students who disagree or strongly disagree that “School has done little to prepare me for adult life when I leave school”; Absence of bullying: Percentage of students who reported never or almost never being victim of any type of bullying act (among a list of five different types of acts); Truancy: Percentage of students who reported that in the two weeks prior to the PISA test they had skipped at least one class or day of school; Academic resilience in science: Percentage of students from the bottom quarter of socio-economic status (disadvantaged students) who scored in the top quarter of performance amongst students in their own country/economy; Beliefs in social mobility: Percentage of students who disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “Your status in society is something that you can’t really change very much”; No shortage of teaching staff: Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction is not at all hindered by a lack of teaching staff; Peer-to-peer tutoring: Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that peer-to-peer tutoring is provided; Learning to assess AI-generated content in class: Percentage of students who reported that, in their school lessons, they assess the quality of information generated by Artificial Intelligence chatbots (e.g. ChatGPT) sometimes, often or very often; School policy: cell phone bans in school: Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the use of cell phones is not allowed on the school premises; School policy: subject-specific guidelines on digital devices: Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the school has formal guidelines for the use of digital devices for teaching and learning in specific subjects.
Source: Figure I.1.2.
An interactive dashboard is available at https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/pisa-education-and-skills.html
Notes on data quality in PISA 2025
This edition of PISA includes data from 91 countries and economies. While the vast majority of countries and economies met PISA’s technical standards, a small number did not. In particular, caution is required when interpreting results of countries and economies mentioned in this note with an asterisk (*) next to their names: their results could be affected by greater uncertainty, or even be biased, because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met. For more information, see the Reader’s Guide in PISA 2025 Results, Volume I and Chapter 18 (Data Adjudication) in the PISA 2025 Technical Report.
In Latvia, all data met the quality standards set by PISA and were considered fit for reporting.
PISA 2025 results for Latvia differ significantly from previous PISA results. These changes were observed in the context of a significant change in the education system. In 2023, updated standards were introduced in compulsory education (grades 1 to 9); between 2023 and 2025, Latvia completed a transition to Latvian as the sole language of instruction in compulsory education; and, starting with 2023, all centralized tests (including PISA) were held in Latvian for all students. Students who were, until 2023, attending schools where Russian was the main language of instruction had, after 2023, at least 80% of their lessons in Latvian. By the time of the PISA test, these students had therefore received at least three year of instruction in Latvian, the language of the test. In 2022, some 28% of students had taken the PISA test in Russian.
Note: White dots indicate mean scores that are not statistically significantly above/below PISA 2025 mean scores. An interactive version of this figure is available at https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/pisa-education-and-skills/performance-trends.html.
Source: Tables I.B1.2a.36-38
Average 2025 results in Latvia were lower than in 2022 in mathematics, reading and science.
In all three subjects, results were the lowest ever observed in PISA in Latvia.
Over the most recent period (2022 to 2025), the gap between the highest-scoring students (10% with the highest scores) and the weakest students (10% with the lowest scores) widened in mathematics, reading and science.
Compared to 2015 the proportion of low-performing students (scoring below proficiency Level 2) increased by 11 percentage points in mathematics; by 24 percentage points in reading; and by 11 percentage points in science.
Students in Latvia scored close to the OECD average in mathematics, and less than the OECD average in reading and science (Figure 3).
A smaller proportion of students in Latvia than on average across OECD countries were top performers (Level 5 or 6) in at least one subject. At the same time, a smaller proportion of students than on average across OECD countries achieved a minimum level of proficiency (Level 2 or higher) in all three subjects (Figure 4).
In computational problem solving, the mean score of students in Latvia was higher than the OECD average (Figure 3).
Latvia, OECD average and selected comparison countries/economies
Notes: Comparison countries/economies include the highest-performing countries and economies overall and the highest-performing OECD countries; for comparisons with all remaining PISA 2025 participants, see source Tables and Figures. Horizontal lines that extend beyond the markers represent a measure of uncertainty associated with mean scores (the 95% confidence interval).
Latvia and OECD average
Source: Tables I.B1.2a.10-12
Some 72% of students in Latvia attained Level 2 or higher in science (OECD average: 74%). At a minimum, these students can recognize the correct explanation for familiar scientific phenomena and can use such knowledge to identify, in simple cases, whether a conclusion is valid based on the data provided. Over 85% of students in top performers B-S-J-Z (China), Macao (China), Singapore, Estonia, Japan, Chinese Taipei and Korea (in descending order of that share) performed at this level or above.
In Latvia, 4% of students were top performers in science, meaning that they were proficient at Level 5 or 6 (OECD average: 7%). These students can creatively and autonomously apply their knowledge of and about science to a wide variety of situations, including unfamiliar ones.
In Latvia, 67% of students attained at least Level 2 proficiency in mathematics (OECD average: 65%). At a minimum, these students can interpret and recognize, without direct instructions, how a simple situation can be represented mathematically (e.g. comparing the total distance across two alternative routes, or converting prices into a different currency).
Some 5% of students in Latvia were top performers in mathematics, meaning that they attained Level 5 or 6 in the PISA mathematics test (OECD average: 8%). The largest shares of students attaining Level 5 or 6 were observed in Seven Asian countries and economies: B-S-J-Z (China) (54%), Singapore (37%), Chinese Taipei (32%), Macao (China) (29%), Korea (23%), Japan (22%) and Hong Kong (China) (21%). At these levels, students can model complex situations mathematically, and can select, compare and evaluate appropriate problem-solving strategies for dealing with them. In 13 countries and economies participating in PISA 2025, more than 10% of students attained Level 5 or 6 proficiency.
Some 59% of students in Latvia attained Level 2 or higher in reading (OECD average: 69%). At a minimum, these students can identify the main idea in a text of moderate length, find information based on explicit, though sometimes complex criteria, and can reflect on the purpose and form of texts when explicitly directed to do so. The share of 15-year-old students who attained minimum levels of proficiency in reading (Level 2 or higher) varied from 93% in B-S-J-Z (China) to 4% in Rwanda.
In Latvia, 2% of students scored at Level 5 or higher in reading (OECD average: 6%). These students can comprehend lengthy texts, deal with concepts that are abstract or counterintuitive, and establish distinctions between fact and opinion, based on implicit cues pertaining to the content or source of the information.
Notes: The left-hand chart shows how the performance of students at different levels of socio-economic status compares to the performance of students with similar socio-economic background across OECD countries on average. The shaded area represents a measure of uncertainty (the 95% confidence interval). Percentages reported on the chart correspond to the percentage of students in Latvia that are in each international quartile of socio-economic status.
The right-hand chart plots the performance and average socio-economic status of schools that participated in PISA (only schools with students in the modal grade for 15-year-olds are shown). The size of dots is proportional to the population of 15-year-old students that each school represents.
The PISA index of economic, social and cultural status is computed in such a way that all students taking the PISA test, regardless of the country where they live, can be placed on the same socio-economic scale. This means that it is possible to use this index to compare the performance of students of similar socio-economic background in different countries. In Latvia, 41% of students (the largest share) were in the top international quartile of the socio-economic scale, meaning that they were among the most advantaged students who took the PISA test in 2025. Their average score in science was 503 score points (Figure 5, left chart). In Singapore, Chinese Taipei and Macao (China), students of similar socio-economic background tend to score significantly higher.
The PISA index of economic, social and cultural status can also be used to order students from the most disadvantaged to the most advantaged within each country and economy, and to create four groups of students of equal size (each comprising 25% of the population of 15-year-old students in each country/economy). In Latvia socio-economically advantaged students (the top 25% in terms of socio-economic status) outperformed disadvantaged students (the bottom 25%) by 58 score points in science. This is smaller than the average difference between the two groups (85 score points) across OECD countries.
Between 2015 and 2025, the gap in science performance between the top and the bottom 25% of students in terms of socio-economic status remained stable in Latvia, while the average gap across OECD countries narrowed. Over this period, performance declined to a similar extent among advantaged and disadvantaged students.
Socio-economic status was a predictor of performance in science in all PISA-participating countries and economies. It accounted for 6% of the variation in science performance in PISA 2025 in Latvia (compared to 12% on average across OECD countries).
Some 16% of disadvantaged students in Latvia were able to score in the top quarter of science performance. These students can be considered academically resilient because, despite their socio-economic disadvantage, they have attained educational excellence by comparison with students in their own country. On average across OECD countries, 12% of disadvantaged students scored in the top quarter of science performance in their own countries.
In Latvia, 71% of students agree or strongly agree that they are curious about many different things, compared to 73% across OECD countries. Moreover, 55% of students reported that they apply additional effort when work becomes challenging (OECD average 60%). At the same time, 31% agree or strongly agree that school has been a waste of time (OECD average: 24%).
Between 2022 and 2025, these attitudes changed somewhat in Latvia. The share of students who reported being curious about many different things decreased by 7.2 percentage points; the proportion who reported applying additional effort when work becomes challenging decreased by 6.3 percentage points; and the percentage of students who agreed that school had been a waste of time increased by 4.3 percentage points during this period.
Curiosity, perseverance and valuing school are most often associated with higher science performance. In Latvia, after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, a one-unit increase in the curiosity index is associated with a difference of 18 score points in science performance, compared to an average of 19 score points across OECD countries; a one-unit increase in the perseverance index is associated with a difference of 15 score points in science performance (OECD average: 13 score points); students who perceive greater value in school and disagree that it is a waste of time tend to achieve higher scores in science (by 29 score points ) than their peers who feel they are wasting their time at school (OECD average: 27 score points).
PISA 2025 also asked students about other attitudes towards learning. For example, 76% of students in Latvia have a growth mindset (OECD average: 69%), i.e. hold the belief that intelligence can be cultivated through work, effort and feedback. On average across OECD countries, students with a growth mindset score 28 score points higher in science than those with a fixed mindset. In Latvia, this difference is 47 score points, after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile.
PISA 2025 data show that there is still room for improvement in terms of students’ self-regulation and goal-setting behaviours. For example, only about 46% of students in Latvia report that they often or very often plan their approach to studying. Furthermore, 48% of students ask themselves questions about the material to check if they have understood everything (OECD averages: 37% and 49%, respectively).
An autonomous self-regulated learner knows when and where to ask for help. PISA 2025 data show that, in most countries, students tend to rely on their teachers and classmates for support with their schoolwork. In Latvia, 79% of students ask their teachers for help when they need it and 79% ask their classmates when they do not fully understand something (OECD averages: 77% and 82%, respectively).
In Latvia help-seeking is positively related to science performance, after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. A one-unit increase in the index of help-seeking is associated with a difference of 5 score points (OECD average: 6 score points).
In 2025, 53% of students in Latvia were in schools whose principals reported that instruction was hindered, at least to some extent, by a perceived lack of teaching staff (OECD average: 39%); the corresponding share for a perceived lack of assisting staff was 45% (OECD average: 39%). The prevalence of perceived teaching staff shortages in Latvia decreased compared to 2022 (68%).
PISA 2025 data reveal that perceived shortages of material resources remain a concern in most countries and economies. Some 57% of students in Latvia attended schools whose principals reported that a lack of educational material (e.g. textbooks, IT equipment, library or laboratory material) hindered instruction, at least to some extent, and 28% were in schools where a lack of physical infrastructure (e.g. buildings, grounds, heating/cooling systems, lighting and acoustic systems) was perceived to hinder instruction. In 2022, the corresponding shares were 56% and 18%, respectively.
In Latvia, students reported spending on average 2.2 hours per day using digital devices at school for learning activities (OECD average: 1.7 hours). At the same time, a non-negligible share of students’ device use on school days is dedicated to non-learning activities: students in Latvia reported spending 1.7 hours per day using digital devices at school for leisure (OECD average: 1.1 hours).
In Latvia, 34% of students reported that their peers are often distracted by the use of digital devices during most or all science lessons (OECD average: 28%). On average across OECD countries, students who reported digital distraction in their science classes score 11 points lower in science than those who reported no digital distraction (after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile). Latvia is among the minority of countries and economies in which digital distraction is not associated with significant differences in student performance.
On average across OECD countries, students in schools where cell phone use is not allowed on school premises are about 13% less likely to report digital distraction. In 2025, 23% of students in Latvia attended schools with such a ban (OECD average: 49%), close to the level observed in PISA 2022 (21%; OECD average in PISA 2022: 34%).
Students in most education systems use AI chatbots for schoolwork, creating new challenges and opportunities for their learning. In Latvia, 51% of students reported using AI chatbots to help them learn at least once a week (OECD average: 46%). Students also frequently use AI to conduct preliminary research on a new topic (Latvia: 30%; OECD average: 31%), to summarise a text they had to read (Latvia: 31%; OECD average: 30%), and to draft text for writing assignments (Latvia: 32%; OECD average: 29%).Only 8% of students reported never or almost never using AI chatbots for any of the schoolwork tasks examined in PISA (OECD average: 14%).
In Latvia, 25% of students reported being victims of at least one form of bullying a few times per month or more in 2025 (OECD average: 20%). The prevalence of bullying increased between PISA 2022 and PISA 2025, as it did in a large majority of participating countries and economies. This rise contrasts with the decline in bullying recorded in Latvia between 2018 and 2022, which was likely linked to the lingering effects of COVID-19 disruptions.
Cyberbullying is relatively uncommon compared with other forms of bullying, but its victims tend to experience significant achievement deficits. In Latvia, 5% of students reported that upsetting information about them was published online, without their consent, at least a few times a month during the 12 months prior to the PISA test (OECD average: 3%). These students scored, on average, 63 points lower in science than their peers.
In Latvia, 59% of students reported that, in most science lessons, the teacher shows an interest in every student’s learning (OECD average: 69%), 65% that the teacher continues teaching until the students understand (OECD average: 66%), 77% that the teacher gives extra help when students need it (OECD average: 73%). In 2015, the corresponding shares were 60%, 68% and 76%.
Disciplinary climate in science lessons in 2025 remains a concern in many countries and economies: about 19% of students in Latvia reported that they cannot work well in most or all lessons (OECD average: 19%); 28% reported noise and disorder disrupted most or every science lesson (OECD average: 31%); 32% of students reported that their classmates do not listen to what the teacher says (OECD average: 29%).
Disciplinary climate and teacher support in science lessons improved between 2015 and 2025 on average across OECD countries. In Latvia, only disciplinary climate improved; teacher support did not change signicantly. Countries and economies with an improved disciplinary climate tend to show stability or an increase in their average science performance compared to 2015.
Student reports of family support substantially decreased in almost all PISA-participating countries and economies between 2022 and 2025. This was also the case in Latvia. In 2025, 64% of students in Latvia reported that their parents or guardians asked them, at least once per week, what they did at school , while 50% reported having at least weekly discussions about problems they might have at school. In 2022, the corresponding shares were 77% and 62%, respectively.
In 2025, around 17% of students in Latvia reported having skipped at least one day of school in the two weeks prior to the test (OECD average: 22%); 30% reported skipping at least one class (OECD average: 24%); 52% reported arriving late for school (OECD average: 50%). In previous years, the corresponding shares were 19%, 33% and 56% (in 2022); 29%, 41% and 55% (in 2018).
In Latvia, 71% of students reached at least baseline proficiency (Level 2) in environmental science. On average across OECD countries, 74% of students achieve this level, with more than 85% reaching it in seven countries and economies.
PISA 2025 shows that students in most education systems report strong pro-environmental attitudes, although fewer feel confident about how to collaborate effectively. In Latvia, 81% of students believe that they can positively impact the environment (OECD average: 81%); 80% believe that collective action can address environmental problems (OECD average: 82%); 68% report knowing how to work with others to positively impact the environment (OECD average: 68%).
In Latvia, 60% of students reported that they are somewhat or very interested in contributing to protecting the environment in their future jobs (OECD average: 62%).
Most students engaged in environment-related activities at least once over the 12 months prior to the PISA test. On average across OECD countries, the most common forms of engagement are discussing with friends and family how to have a positive impact on the environment (Latvia: 60%; OECD average: 56%) and making purchasing decisions based on the sustainability of products (OECD average: 54%; 71% in Latvia).
The PISA 2025 survey focused on science, with mathematics and reading as minor areas; an assessment of learning in the digital world measured students’ computational problem-solving skills and their ability to self-direct their learning in a digital environment. Results for science, mathematics, reading and computational problem solving are released on 8 September 2026 and analyses of students’ self-directed learning in 2027.
Over 760 000 students took the assessment in 2025, representing about 33 million 15-year-olds in the schools of the 91 participating countries and economies.
In Latvia, 6 968 students, in 268 schools, completed the assessment, representing about 17 700 15-year-old students (an estimated 81% of the total population of 15-year-olds).
PISA students are aged between 15 years 3 months and 16 years 2 months at the time of the assessment, and they have completed at least 6 years of formal schooling. In this note, they are referred to as 15-year-old students.
Students took a two hour test, and each student was tested in two subjects. Different students were given different test questions and different combinations of subjects (e.g. science followed by reading, or mathematics followed by science, etc.). Test items were a mixture of multiple-choice questions and questions requiring students to construct their own responses.
Students also answered a background questionnaire, which took about 35 minutes to complete. The questionnaire sought information about the students themselves, their attitudes, dispositions and beliefs, their homes, and their school and learning experiences. School principals completed a questionnaire about school management, organisation, and the learning environment.
Some countries/economies also distributed additional questionnaires, to students, parents and/or teachers, to elicit more information. The findings from these optional questionnaires are not covered by this note.
Contact
For more information about PISA 2025 visit www.oecd.org/pisa
Explore, compare and visualise more data and analysis using http://gpseducation.oecd.org.
Questions can be directed to the PISA team at the Directorate for Education and Skills: edu.pisa@oecd.org.
This note was written by Francesco Avvisati (OECD Directorate for Education and Skills).
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Note by the Republic of Türkiye
The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Türkiye recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Türkiye shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.
Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union
The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Türkiye. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): Future-Ready Students, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/73451bc5-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.