Education for humanity
Which countries have the best education today, and how did they get there? An analysis based on reliable sources and international studies that measure real results, not opinions.
1. IntroductionWhat this report analyzes and how
This report looks at which countries stand out today for the quality of their education and what they did to get there. Through international data and concrete cases, we explore how Japan, South Korea, China, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam transformed their societies through education decisions sustained over decades.
Rather than comparing rankings, we want to understand what lies behind their results: public policy, investment, teaching methods and models that can be analyzed, compared and, in some cases, adapted to other contexts.
2. How education quality is measuredThese are the most reliable international sources we use in this report
Education quality is not compared with opinions but with standardized international tests and studies. These are the most reliable sources:
| Source | What it measures | Link |
|---|---|---|
| PISA (OECD) | Math, reading and science among 15-year-olds. The most influential test; it is given every 3 years. | oecd.org |
| TIMSS and PIRLS (IEA) | Math, science and reading in primary and secondary school; they complement PISA with a focus on the school curriculum. | iea.nl |
| World Bank | Access, equity, years of schooling and effective learning (“learning poverty”). | worldbank.org |
| UNESCO | Literacy, enrollment, funding and the right to education worldwide. | unesco.org |
| IDB (LLECE / ERCE) | Learning and equity specifically in Latin America and the Caribbean. | iadb.org |
| World Economic Forum / U.S. News | Quality, equity and global reputation of the education system. | weforum.org |
PISA: what it measures and when the new results arrive
PISA assesses 15-year-olds who are enrolled in school in three specific subjects: math, reading and science. It is given every 3 years. The most recent results are from PISA 2022 (published in December 2023), which remain the official baseline for this report. The main results of PISA 2025 will be published on September 8, 2026, with the full international report in December of that year.
What PISA 2025 will bring: more than 760,000 students from 91 countries took part—the largest edition ever—with a special focus on science; a new domain of learning in the digital world (computational problem-solving) and, for the first time, evidence on how students use artificial intelligence for their schoolwork.
Source: OECD — New PISA results coming soon (2026)
2.1 What the other sources say
This report relies mainly on PISA, but the other sources in the table confirm and round out the picture:
- TIMSS 2023 (IEA). The latest published edition (December 2024), with more than 650,000 students from 64 countries. It confirms East Asia's dominance: Singapore ranked 1st in the world in both math and science, in both 4th and 8th grade (615 and 605 points in math), followed by Chinese Taipei, Korea, Japan and Hong Kong. In other words: two different tests, with different methodologies, point to the same leaders. Source: IEA — TIMSS 2023 International Results
- World Bank. It measures “learning poverty”: the percentage of 10-year-olds who cannot read and understand a simple text. After the pandemic it reached 70% in low- and middle-income countries (it was 57% before 2020), and in Latin America and the Caribbean it reached an estimated 80%. It is a reminder that the global problem is not just who reaches the top, but how many master the basics. Source: World Bank — Ending Learning Poverty
- UNESCO. It reports that 251 million children and young people are still out of school worldwide, a figure that has fallen by barely 1% since 2015. Access is very unequal: in high-income countries 3% of children are out of school; in low-income countries, one in ten. Source: UNESCO — GEM Report
- UNESCO-LLECE / IDB (ERCE 2019). Latin America's regional assessment (14 countries, more than 160,000 students) found that 60% of 6th-grade students do not reach the minimum level in reading and math, with significant progress since 2013. It is the basis for the regional analysis in section 7. Source: UNESCO — ERCE 2019
The order changes depending on the source: in math and science scores, East Asian countries dominate; in equity and overall quality, the Nordic and other European countries stand out. Both readings are valid because they measure different things. This report uses PISA 2022 as its main reference and adds a 2026 composite ranking for the most up-to-date view possible.
3. World ranking (latest data)PISA 2022 results in math, reading and science
3.1 Ranking by school performance — PISA 2022 (OECD)
Ranking by PISA 2022 math score, the main subject of that edition. The OECD average was 472 points: anything above it indicates a strong system. For reference, it includes Vietnam, a lower-middle-income country with rich-country results, and the two best performers in Latin America.
Our own chart based on PISA 2022 data (OECD). In gold, the best performers in Latin America; in teal, Vietnam; in gray, the OECD average.
Official data for the chart: OECD — PISA 2022 Results (Volume I), oecd.org
Reading the chart. The top spots are almost all held by East Asia. Singapore is not just first: its score of 575 is the highest any country has ever achieved in a PISA subject, and it is equivalent to about three years of schooling above the OECD average. In Europe, Estonia is the best. The United States came in below average in math, although it remains the world leader in higher education and research. The case of Vietnam is the most striking: with much lower investment per student, it outperforms several OECD countries.
3.2 Reading and science — PISA 2022
Math was the main subject of PISA 2022, but the test also assessed reading and science. Asia's lead holds, though with nuances: in reading, countries such as Ireland, the United States and New Zealand move up, and in science Japan comes very close to Singapore.
Our own chart with PISA 2022 data (OECD). In gold, the best performers in Latin America; Vietnam, in teal; in gray, the OECD average. Note that in reading the United States does come in above average (9th), and that Chile achieves its best relative result here (37th in the world).
Our own chart with PISA 2022 data (OECD). In science, Vietnam (472) practically matches its math score and comes close to the OECD average (485).
How the OECD average has changed in the three subjects. The 2022 drop—the largest in PISA's history, especially in math (-15 points compared with 2018)—reflects the impact of the pandemic on almost every education system. That is why, in section 7, “holding steady” between 2018 and 2022 counts as a good result.
Official data for the three subjects and the trends: OECD — PISA 2022 Results (Volume I), oecd.org
3.3 Full table — PISA 2022, math
| # | Country / Economy | Math score | Region |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Singapore | 575 | Asia |
| 2 | Macao (China) | 552 | Asia |
| 3 | Chinese Taipei | 547 | Asia |
| 4 | Hong Kong (China) | 540 | Asia |
| 5 | Japan | 536 | Asia |
| 6 | South Korea | 527 | Asia |
| 7 | Estonia | 510 | Europe |
| 8 | Switzerland | 508 | Europe |
| 9 | Canada | 497 | Americas |
| 10 | Netherlands | 493 | Europe |
| 11 | Ireland | 492 | Europe |
| 12 | United Kingdom | 489 | Europe |
| 13 | Poland | 489 | Europe |
| 14 | Australia | 487 | Oceania |
| 15 | Finland | 484 | Europe |
| 16 | Sweden | 482 | Europe |
| 17 | New Zealand | 479 | Oceania |
| 18 | Germany | 475 | Europe |
| 19 | Spain | 473 | Europe |
| — | OECD average | 472 | — |
| 31 | Vietnam | 469 | Asia |
| 20 | United States | 465 | Americas |
| 52 | Chile (1st in Latin America) | 412 | Americas |
| 53 | Uruguay | 409 | Americas |
Math scores, PISA 2022 (OECD). China did not take part fully in 2022; in PISA 2018 its provinces of Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Zhejiang led the world with 591 points. Vietnam, Chile and Uruguay are shown out of order as a point of comparison.
Data source: OECD — PISA 2022 Results (Volume I)
3.4 Composite ranking — 2026 (World Top 20 Project)
This 2026 index does not measure a single test: it combines scores, graduation rates, enrollment and system coverage. That is why the order differs from PISA and Nordic and other European countries rise to the top. It is the 2026 reference while the PISA 2025 results are being released.
| # | Country | Region | # | Country | Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | South Korea | Asia | 11 | Singapore | Asia |
| 2 | Japan | Asia | 12 | France | Europe |
| 3 | Denmark | Europe | 13 | China | Asia |
| 4 | Belgium | Europe | 14 | Hong Kong | Asia |
| 5 | Slovenia | Europe | 15 | Sweden | Europe |
| 6 | Netherlands | Europe | 16 | United Kingdom | Europe |
| 7 | Germany | Europe | 17 | Australia | Oceania |
| 8 | Finland | Europe | 18 | Iceland | Europe |
| 9 | Norway | Europe | 19 | Canada | Americas |
| 10 | Ireland | Europe | 20 | Spain | Europe |
2026 composite ranking, World Top 20 Project (worldtop20.org). A different methodology from PISA's.
3.5 How to read the two rankings together
The two tables do not contradict each other: they measure different things. In pure academic performance (PISA 2022), East Asia leads, with Singapore at the top. In the overall quality of the system (2026 composite index), Korea, Japan and the Nordic and other European countries move up, because coverage, graduation and equity carry weight there, not just test scores. In fact, it is common for a country to rank high in one and mid-table in the other: Finland is 15th in PISA but 8th in the composite index; Singapore is 1st in PISA and 11th in the composite.
At bottom, both agree: the leaders combine well-trained, valued teachers, equitable access and policy continuity over decades. That is the pattern repeated in every case analyzed in the next section.
4. Turnaround stories: countries that transformed themselvesLessons from countries that went from crisis to education leaders
These countries share one lesson: at their starting point they had neither natural resources nor luck; they bet on education as a state strategy and changed their destiny within a few decades. None of them took less than a generation. Each case also covers how they studied and what drove them: the concrete method behind the result (developed in section 5).
| Country | Starting point | Areas of progress | Key achievement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | Devastation of 1945 | Economic and technological | World's 2nd-largest economy; technology leader |
| South Korea | Postwar poverty | Economic, social and cultural | Most educated country in the OECD; cultural powerhouse |
| China | Agrarian country (1978) | Economic and scientific | From importer to innovator; leader in STEM graduates |
| Singapore | Island with no resources (1965) | Educational and economic | No. 1 in the world in PISA; global financial hub |
| United States | Established power | Science and innovation | Dominates the world's universities and research |
| Vietnam | Postwar years and poverty | Educational and economic | Rich-country results on a small budget |
| Finland / Estonia | Small countries | Social, equity and digital | Best equity; European leaders in PISA |
Japan — From the ashes to economic and technological leadership
After its surrender in 1945, Japan lay in ruins. It undertook a sweeping education reform (1945–1952) and adopted the developmental-state model: the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) picked strategic industries and drove them forward on the back of an educated workforce. Within about 30 years it had become the world's 2nd-largest economy.
| Stage | What they solved | Concrete decisions |
|---|---|---|
| 1945–1952 Rebuild | Rebuild the school system from scratch | Fundamental Law of Education (1947): 9 years of compulsory schooling (6+3), coeducation, an end to the militaristic curriculum, and a national university in every prefecture. |
| 1950s Universalize | Make sure everyone finished basic school | Near-universal enrollment in primary and lower secondary school, a single national curriculum (Course of Study), and mass teacher training. |
| 1960s Build technical skills | Train the technicians industry needed | Creation of KOSEN (5-year technical colleges, 1962), more engineering schools, and a strong emphasis on math and science. |
| 1970s Absorb | Import technology and improve on it | MITI selects strategic industries; companies buy licenses and refine them. Total quality control and quality circles are born. |
| 1980 → Innovate | Create its own technology | R&D spending rises steadily until it tops 3% of GDP; Japan goes from copying to patenting and today leads in patent families. |
How they studied: In a country with no natural resources, studying was the only way out of ruin. A long school year (~240 days/year), daily homework, high demands in math and collective discipline; teachers refine their lessons through Lesson Study (5.1), and more than half of all students attend juku cram schools (5.4).
Sources: Britannica — Education after WWII · Britannica — Japan: Economic transformation
South Korea — From poverty to economic and cultural powerhouse
In the 1950s its per capita income was comparable to that of the poorest countries in Africa. The government made education the second-largest item in the budget and raised literacy to 96% by 1958. Today it is the most highly educated country in the OECD (71% of young people have tertiary education) and a cultural powerhouse.
| Stage | What they solved | Concrete decisions |
|---|---|---|
| 1950s Teach literacy | Lift the country out of illiteracy after the war | Compulsory primary school (1950), maintained throughout the war. Literacy rises to 96% by 1958 and primary enrollment to 90% by 1960. |
| 1960s Universalize | Get everyone from primary into secondary school | The entrance exam for middle school is abolished (1968–69); the transition to secondary jumps to 90%. Education becomes the 2nd-largest item in the national budget. |
| 1970s Equalize | End the competition between schools | High School Equalization Policy (1974): no entrance exams, placement by lottery and equal funding; technical high schools expand. |
| 1980s–90s Scale up | Send an entire generation to university | University quotas are lifted; 9 years of compulsory secondary schooling. EBS is launched (1990) and the CSAT/Suneung (1994) becomes the single national exam. |
| 2000 → Refine | Sustain the level and contain the social cost | Digital classrooms, free EBS online classes (2004) and after-school support to reduce reliance on cram schools; hagwon are regulated. |
How they studied: The engine is the promise of social mobility through the exam (the Suneung). 78.5% of students attend hagwon cram schools; the academic results are real, but so is the cost: student stress and some US$20 billion a year spent on private education (5.4).
Sources: OECD — Education at a Glance 2025: Korea · The Borgen Project — Education in South Korea
China — From agrarian country to global scientific innovator
With Deng Xiaoping's opening-up in 1978, China rebuilt its education and its science. Today it invests about 4% of its GDP in education, graduates four times as many STEM engineers and scientists as the United States, and has climbed from 34th (2012) to 10th (2025) in the Global Innovation Index.
| Stage | What they solved | Concrete decisions |
|---|---|---|
| 1977–1978 Reopen | Put academic merit back at the center | The gaokao is restored and universities reopen. Deng Xiaoping's opening-up makes education and science pillars of development. |
| 1986 Universalize | Get every child into school | Compulsory Education Law: nine free, compulsory years for everyone from age six. |
| 1995–1998 Concentrate | Build world-class universities | Project 211 (1995, ~115 universities) and Project 985 (1998, 39 institutions) with extraordinary funding. |
| 2000s Scale up | Bring millions into higher education | Expansion of university places and technical institutes, priority for STEM, and mass scholarships to study abroad with an explicit expectation of return. |
| 2015 → Lead | Shift from quantity to quality and innovation | Double First-Class (2015): 147 elite universities and disciplines. In 2021, the “double reduction” policy on homework and private tutoring. |
How they studied: The engine is the gaokao, taken by more than 13 million young people every year. Long school days, a culture of effort with Confucian roots, top priority for STEM degrees, and massive investment in elite universities (985/211, now Double First-Class).
Sources: CSET (Georgetown) — China Outpacing U.S. STEM PhD Growth · People's Daily — China's journey of innovation
United States — Leadership in universities and research
Although it falls below the OECD average in PISA math, the United States is the world leader in higher education: it is home to more than 35 of the world's top 100 research universities (Harvard, Stanford, MIT). Its strength lies in universities and graduate school, not in basic schooling.
| Stage | What they solved | Concrete decisions |
|---|---|---|
| 1862 Democratize | Take the university out of the hands of the elite | Morrill Act: federal land for each state to found universities. Accessible, practical land-grant colleges are born. |
| 1944 Scale up | Send millions of working people to university | GI Bill: the government pays for veterans' education. Enrollment goes from 8,000 (1945) to two million (1950). |
| 1945–1950 Fund science | Make sure someone paid for basic research | “Science: The Endless Frontier” (1945) and the creation of the National Science Foundation (1950): public money, university-run research. |
| 1960–80s Research | Turn the university into an engine of innovation | Graduate programs and federal funders (NSF, NIH, DARPA) grow: their labs produce the Internet, GPS, CRISPR and mRNA vaccines. |
| Today Attract | Sustain leadership with talent from abroad | The system draws on students and researchers from around the world, attracted by scholarships, academic freedom and career opportunities. |
How they studied: Its method is not more hours of school but the research university: project- and lab-based learning, competitive graduate programs, a direct link between universities, industry and federal science funding, and an enormous capacity to attract talent from all over the world.
Sources: NSF — A Brief History · Bush Center — The Morrill Land-Grant College Act (1862)
Singapore — From 1965 to first place in the world
When it became independent in 1965 it was a small island with no natural resources. It built its system on meritocracy and centralized management by the Ministry of Education, with a demanding curriculum and heavy investment in selecting and training teachers (National Institute of Education, 1991). Today it leads the world in math, science and reading.
| Stage | What they solved | Concrete decisions |
|---|---|---|
| 1965–1978 Survive | Get the whole population into school and unite the country | School expansion and a bilingual policy (1966): English as the common language plus the mother tongue. This is the system's founding decision. |
| 1979 Correct | Curb dropouts and school failure | The Goh Report finds high dropout rates and ineffective bilingualism. The New Education System is born, letting students advance at different paces according to their level. |
| 1991 Train | Raise the quality of teaching | The National Institute of Education (NIE) is created; every teacher receives 100 hours of professional development a year, and teachers are selected from among the best. |
| 1997 Think | Move from memorizing to reasoning | “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation”: critical thinking, creativity, teamwork and digital literacy, without lowering standards. |
| 2005 → Deepen | Teach better, not more | “Teach Less, Learn More”: content is cut to make time for deep understanding; technical education is strengthened and given more prestige. |
How they studied: The engine was survival, turned into meritocracy. In the classroom, Singapore math (C-P-A, 5.2) puts understanding before memorization; teachers are selected from among the best and work in professional communities that review results together.
Sources: The HEAD Foundation — Secrets of Singapore's Success · IEA — TIMSS 2023 International Results
Vietnam — Rich-country results on a poor-country budget
With a per capita income far below the OECD's and much less investment per student, Vietnam scored close to the OECD average in PISA 2022. Studies of the “Vietnamese advantage” conclude that material factors explain at most a third of the result; the rest comes down to solid teachers, an essential curriculum and high social expectations of effort.
| Stage | What they solved | Concrete decisions |
|---|---|---|
| 1945–1975 Teach literacy | Teach a country at war to read | Mass adult literacy campaigns, sustained throughout the conflict. Education takes hold as a patriotic duty. |
| 1986 Prioritize | Define education as the engine of development | With the Doi Moi reform, the state declares education a “top national priority.” Schools remain public and free. |
| 1991 Universalize | Leave no child out | Law on universal primary education (5 compulsory years), later extended to lower secondary. Near-universal enrollment; 97% with at least one year of preschool. |
| 2000s Teach well | Turn attendance into learning | High-quality national textbooks, teaching standards and frequent assessment; the Escuela Nueva model (VNEN) is adapted. |
| 2013 → Modernize | Move from memorizing to understanding | Resolution 29 (2013) mandates a competency-based curriculum focused on critical thinking and problem-solving. |
How they studied: The drive came from the postwar years and the Doi Moi reform (1986). The method is structured teaching (5.6): a few topics mastered in depth, good textbooks that are the same across the country, respected teachers and frequent assessment. Consistency over talent.
Sources: OECD — PISA 2022 Country Note: Viet Nam · World Bank — Vietnam
Finland and Estonia — The European model of equity
Finland shows that you can excel without pressure: with no national standardized exams or school rankings, it trusts its teachers—a highly respected profession that requires a master's degree—and puts equity first. Estonia is now the best in Europe in PISA 2022 (510 in math), adding digital innovation from school onward. Both show that equity is not the opposite of excellence.
| Stage | What they solved | Concrete decisions |
|---|---|---|
| 1972–1977 Unify | Stop sorting children by ability | Peruskoulu reform: a single nine-year school for everyone, free of charge, with meals and transportation included. |
| 1979 Professionalize | Make teaching an elite career | Teacher training moves to the universities and requires a master's degree; programs admit about 10% of applicants. |
| 1994 Trust | Hand decisions back to the classroom | A curriculum that sets common goals but leaves the how to each school; less inspection and testing, formative assessment. |
| 1996 → Go digital | Estonia: the foundation of a digital society | Tiigrihüpe (“Tiger Leap”): computers and internet in schools, teacher training and digital materials in Estonian. |
| 2000 → Sustain | Stay the course and close gaps | Strong investment in special education and early individual support. Both countries maintain the policy regardless of who is in government. |
How they studied: Here the engine was not pressure but trust: shorter school days, little homework (about 3 h/week in Finland), frequent breaks and project-based learning. It works because teachers are an elite (teacher training admits ~10% and requires a master's degree) with complete freedom of method (5.3); Estonia added the digital layer.
Sources: Centre for Public Impact — Education reform in Finland · Education Estonia — Tiger Leap
The common pattern across all seven cases
By very different paths, they all repeat four decisions. None achieved results in less than a generation, and none achieved them by improvising:
| No. | Decision | What it involved |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Education as a national priority | They made it state policy with real, sustained funding, not a campaign promise. |
| 2 | Teachers at the center | They selected the best, trained them well, and gave them professional respect and good pay. |
| 3 | A course held for decades | They kept the strategy beyond any one government; results took 15 to 30 years. |
| 4 | Education connected to the economy | They aligned what is taught with what the country needed to produce: industry, technology, science. |
5. Ways and methods of studyingConcrete methodologies, programs and models used in their schools
Beyond money, what sets these countries apart are concrete methods of teaching and studying. Section 4 showed how each method propelled its country of origin; here each one is developed in detail: what it is, how it is helping, what it would take to apply it in another context, a key fact and the source.
5.1 Lesson Study (Jugyou Kenkyuu)
What it is: a continuous-improvement method born in Japanese primary schools. A group of teachers plans a “research lesson” together; one teaches it while the others observe how the students learn, and afterward they analyze what worked in order to redesign it. The cycle—plan → teach and observe → analyze → redesign—repeats all year long.
How it is helping: it produces gradual but steady improvement in teaching. It is so effective that it is now used in more than 30 countries—the United States, the United Kingdom and several in Latin America—because it develops better teachers without major costs.
What it would take to apply it: protected time within the teaching day to plan and observe as a team, and a culture in which being observed is not experienced as punitive evaluation. It is more a change in organization than in budget.
Key fact. Japan has practiced it for more than a century; in the West it became popular after the 1995 TIMSS study. It is the most widely studied “in-classroom” teacher development practice in the world.
Country of origin: Japan · Source: ASCD — Learning from Japanese Lesson Study
5.2 Singapore Math (C-P-A approach) and teacher communities
What it is: it teaches math by moving from the Concrete to the Pictorial and then to the Abstract (C-P-A): first real objects, then drawings and diagrams (such as the “bar model”), and finally symbols, putting understanding before memorization. Teachers work in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).
How it is helping: it has taken Singapore to first place in the world in math, and it is one of the few systems that improves from one PISA cycle to the next. “Singapore Math” is already used in textbooks and schools in the United States and the United Kingdom.
What it would take to apply it: hands-on materials and, above all, specific teacher training: the method fails if the textbook is adopted without changing how teachers teach.
Key fact. Singapore takes care of those who apply it: every teacher receives 100 hours of paid professional development a year and is trained at a single national institute (NIE), which ensures consistent quality across all schools.
Country of origin: Singapore · Source: The HEAD Foundation — Secrets of Singapore's Success
5.3 Flexible curriculum and trust in teachers
What it is: the national curriculum sets common goals, but each school and each teacher decides how to teach them. Less control and more quality: little homework, shorter school days, project-based learning, room for the arts and sports, and formative assessment (to learn, not to rank).
How it is helping: it produces some of the smallest gaps in the world between students and between regions: good results with low school stress. It is the model many countries study when their main problem is inequality.
What it would take to apply it: teachers with graduate-level training and a high degree of autonomy, plus a long-term political agreement. Without that foundation, “giving schools freedom” widens the gap instead of closing it.
Key fact. in Finland, teacher training programs admit only ~10% of applicants and require a master's degree; students spend about 3 hours a week on homework—among the lowest in the OECD—and the country is still in Europe's top 10 in PISA. Estonia, with the same principle plus digital schooling, is now the best in Europe (510 in math).
Country of origin: Finland and Estonia · Source: World Bank — Finland's Education System
5.4 A culture of effort and cram schools (juku / hagwon)
What it is: a strong social value placed on studying is complemented by private afternoon cram schools: “juku” in Japan and “hagwon” in Korea, where students prepare for the entrance exams that shape much of their academic and professional future.
How it is helping: it accounts for much of the high scores and study discipline: in Korea almost 8 out of 10 students attend, for an average of 7.3 extra hours a week.
What it would take to apply it: it is the least exportable and most debated method: it creates heavy pressure, high family spending and an advantage for those who can pay. Korea has even limited hagwon hours by law. It is better to adopt the social value placed on studying, not the cram-school model.
Key fact. Korean families spend about US$20 billion a year on supplementary private education (+60% in a decade). It is the largest “shadow education” system in the world relative to population.
Country of origin: Japan and South Korea · Source: The Korea Times — Private education spending
5.5 Dual training (study + real work)
What it is: it combines school with paid placements at real companies: students alternate between the classroom and the workplace under an apprenticeship contract. In Switzerland it is the main pathway: about two-thirds of young people choose it after finishing compulsory school, in more than 200 trades.
How it is helping: it achieves one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in Europe and trains technicians who are in high demand. It is the most widely copied model for connecting education to the labor market.
What it would take to apply it: companies have to take on a training role, and there must be a clear legal framework for apprenticeships. It works best where there is an industrial base and organized trade associations.
Key fact. the two benchmark countries for the dual model (Germany and Switzerland) have youth unemployment of half the European average or less.
Country of origin: Switzerland and Germany · Source: World Economic Forum — Vocational training
5.6 Structured teaching and a focus on the essentials
What it is: a narrow, carefully sequenced curriculum, direct and well-prepared lessons, high-quality textbooks that are the same across the country, and frequent low-cost assessment to catch students who fall behind in time. Less content is taught, but it is taught well and checked to make sure it was learned.
How it is helping: it allows Vietnam to reach the OECD average while spending a fraction per student, and to outscore the Latin American average by about 90 points with comparable investment. It is the approach the World Bank most often recommends to countries with limited resources.
What it would take to apply it: it is probably the most applicable model for a middle-income country: it does not require expensive technology, but rather deciding what is essential, guaranteeing good materials and sustaining teacher training.
Key fact. 97% of Vietnamese students attended at least one year of preschool (more than the OECD average of 94%). The “Vietnamese advantage” is consistency, not budget.
Country of origin: Vietnam · Source: OECD — PISA 2022 Country Note: Viet Nam
5.7 Comparative summary of the methods
| Method | Origin | Main goal | Ease of applying |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lesson Study | Japan | Improve teaching from inside the classroom | High — costs time, not money |
| Singapore Math (C-P-A) | Singapore | Deep understanding in math | Medium — requires training teachers |
| Flexible curriculum | Finland and Estonia | Equity and student well-being | Low — requires highly trained teachers |
| Culture of effort / cram schools | Japan and Korea | Exam performance | Low — high social cost and inequality |
| Dual training | Switzerland and Germany | Technical employability for young people | Medium — needs committed companies |
| Structured teaching | Vietnam | Basic learning on a small budget | High — the most viable with limited resources |
The “ease of applying” column is a qualitative assessment by this research, based on what each model requires (budget, teacher training, legal framework), not an official indicator.
6. Does government play a role? Yes, a big oneState policy, investment, continuity and how they sustain results
The central question of this research has a clear answer: in every successful case the state was the engine. No country improved by chance or through the isolated efforts of its students alone. In every story there is a government that made deliberate decisions and stuck with them over time. Experts call several of these cases a “developmental state”: a state that plans, invests and steers development, with education at the heart of the strategy.
These are the eight pillars that recur in the countries that pulled themselves up:
| Pillar | What it involves | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Political will and budget | Make education a national priority and fund it on a sustained basis. | Korea: 2nd-largest budget item; China: ~4% of GDP |
| 2. Long-term vision | Reforms maintained for decades, without changing course with every new government. | Finland: ~20 years of cross-party consensus |
| 3. Investment in teachers | Select, train and value teachers, and pay them well so that teaching is respected. | Singapore and Finland choose from the top of each graduating class |
| 4. Clear curriculum and standards | National learning goals and good materials, with school autonomy to adapt them. | The Nordic and Singapore models |
| 5. Honest measurement | Assess regularly and publish the results, even when they are bad, so they can be corrected. | Those that improved steadily measured themselves without fear |
| 6. Education tied to the economy | Develop the human capital industry needs, coordinating schools, universities and companies. | Japan (MITI); Swiss and German dual training |
| 7. Science and innovation | Fund universities and research as an engine of new industries. | United States and China |
| 8. Equitable access | Guarantee a good education for everyone, not just an elite, so that no talent is wasted. | Nordic countries, Estonia, Canada |
The state does not “teach classes,” but it builds the conditions for good education to happen: it decides how much money is invested and in what, how teachers are trained and paid, what is taught, how it is assessed and what opportunities exist after graduation. When those pieces line up and stay in place for years, results appear; when the country improvises or changes course with every government, the system stagnates.
That said, government is necessary but it is not everything. The best systems combine the push from the state with support from families, a culture that values studying and committed teachers. Korea and Japan, for example, add public policy to a strong family culture of effort. The state starts the engine and keeps it running, but society as a whole moves it forward.
Money helps, but it does not decide
An IDB analysis of PISA 2022 shows that OECD countries invest three times more per student than the average of the Latin American countries assessed. However, investment explains only part of the result: Vietnam and Turkey invest at a level similar to the region's and achieve much higher scores than their spending predicts, while other countries perform below what would be expected given their investment. What matters is not only how much is spent, but what it is spent on and how consistently.
In short: talent exists in every country, but it takes a government to organize it, fund it and sustain the strategy over time. That is what separates the countries that pulled themselves up from those that fell behind.
7. Latin America: where it stands and what it can learnRegional indicators, challenges and recommendations that apply to our reality
No report on world education is complete without looking at one's own region. 14 countries from Latin America and the Caribbean took part in PISA 2022—a record turnout—: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay. The picture is challenging, but not uniform: some countries sustain acceptable results and others show real improvement over time.
7.1 Where the region stands
Our own chart with PISA 2022 data (OECD) and the IDB's regional analysis. In gold, the region's two best results.
Official data: OECD — PISA 2022 Results (Volume I)
Chile and Uruguay lead the region in all three areas assessed, followed by Mexico, Peru, Costa Rica and Colombia. Even so, the best in Latin America only appears at 52nd out of 81 systems assessed in math. According to the IDB, the region is about 5 years of schooling behind the OECD average and about 10 years behind the leader. The World Bank estimates that, after the pandemic, 80% of children in the region cannot understand a simple text at age 10, and UNESCO's ERCE assessment found that 60% of 6th-grade students do not reach the minimum level.
One fact softens the picture: in reading the region does noticeably better than in math. Chile ranks 37th in the world in reading, and no Latin American country appears in the bottom five in that area.
7.2 Who improved over time
The comparison between PISA 2018 and PISA 2022 is especially harsh because it spans the pandemic, which pushed results down almost everywhere in the world, including the OECD (−15 points in math). Seen in that context, some of the region's results are better than they look:
Change in math scores between PISA 2018 and PISA 2022. Our own chart with OECD data and the IDB's analysis.
- The Dominican Republic grew the most in the region: +14 points in math, +9 in reading and +24 in science. It started from a very low level, but it advanced in all three areas at once.
- Panama is one of the few countries in the world that improved in the middle of the pandemic: +15 points in reading and +23 in science, while holding steady in math.
- Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia held steady in all three areas—in a cycle when most countries fell, holding the line is already a result. Argentina also narrowed its gap: its poorest students improved in math.
- Colombia shows the best long-term trend: since 2006 it has gained 13 points in math and 24 in reading, and it has kept those gains.
- Peru was for years the country with the fastest pace of improvement in the world among low-performing systems; the pandemic cut that trend short in math (−9), but it held steady in reading and science.
- Chile and Uruguay remain the regional benchmark in absolute terms, although they have stagnated for several cycles: they keep the lead, but they are no longer closing the distance with the OECD.
7.3 Which lessons really apply
Of the models analyzed in section 5, not all are equally useful for the region. The most viable are those that do not depend on a large budget:
| Lesson | Why it fits the region | Reference model |
|---|---|---|
| Secure basic learning first | Three out of four students in the region do not reach the minimum level in math: the problem is not excellence but the foundation. | Vietnam |
| Train teachers inside the school | It is the reform with the best cost-to-results ratio: it improves teaching without raising spending. | Japan (Lesson Study) |
| Good materials and a focused curriculum | Teaching fewer topics well is more effective than a sprawling curriculum nobody manages to cover. | Vietnam and Singapore |
| Keep the policy beyond a single government | The countries that improved took 15 to 20 years; frequent changes of course wipe out progress. | Finland and Korea |
| Close the gap, not just raise the average | Educational inequality is the region's most pronounced trait and the one that most holds back national averages. | Nordic countries, Estonia, Canada |
| Measure and publish results | Without comparable, public data, problems cannot be corrected in time. | The entire OECD |
The regional conclusion
Latin America is not far from the best because of a lack of talent, nor solely because of a lack of money: Vietnam achieves OECD-level results with investment comparable to the region's. The difference lies in the continuity of education policy, the quality of teacher training and the focus on making sure every student masters the basics. These are slow, unglamorous changes, but they are exactly what the countries now at the top of the rankings did.
8. ConclusionsThe four ideas that sum up the research
The countries with the best education were not born rich or lucky. Four ideas sum up the research:
- Education is the most powerful tool for a country to pull itself up, and not just technologically.
- Good results depend on serious study methods, not magic formulas.
- Government is decisive: political will, sustained investment and a long-term vision; but the state alone is not enough.
- Budget explains less than people think: what matters is what the money is spent on and how long it is sustained.
“The success of these countries was not based on natural resources or luck, but on planning, education, innovation and work.”
