PISA 2022: Immigrant Student Achievement Gap
83% explained by socioeconomic factors
OECD average raw gap: −29 pts. After socioeconomic control: −5 pts. Finland −42 pts; Australia +26 pts. The gap's existence and its cause are two separate questions.
Negative values = immigrant students score below native-born peers (gap unfavorable to immigrants). Values shown are after ESCS socioeconomic control. Norway: adjusted figure not published; raw gap shown. Italy and Ireland: gap becomes non-significant after control (not shown).
Positive values = immigrant students outperform native-born peers. These countries use points-based immigration systems that select for education and skills, resulting in highly educated immigrant parents whose children benefit from greater cultural capital.
Key methodological notes
- Definition of "immigrant student": OECD defines this as having at least one parent born abroad (second generation) or being born abroad oneself (first generation). National statistics may use different definitions (citizenship, foreign-born, etc.).
- ESCS index: Economic, Social and Cultural Status — a composite of household wealth, parental education, and cultural resources (e.g., books at home). Controlling for ESCS isolates the effect of immigrant background from poverty.
- Points-based immigration effect: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK select immigrants based on education, skills, and language ability. Their immigrant populations have above-average education levels, and their children inherit greater academic capital.
- Language environment: In the 8 European countries with large persistent gaps, 60–85% of immigrant students speak a language other than the host country's at home. This is a major driver of the gap that remains after ESCS control.
- First vs second generation: Data from Norway, Italy, and Denmark show that second-generation immigrants (born in the host country) have substantially smaller gaps — convergence across generations is the norm.
PISA 2022 Math Gap: Country-by-Country Data
| Country | Raw gap (pts) | After ESCS control (pts) | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finland | -65 | -42 | Large persistent gap |
| Norway | -36 | Not published | Large gap (adjusted N/A) |
| Sweden | -63 | -34 | Large persistent gap |
| Germany | -59 | -32 | Large persistent gap |
| Denmark | -54 | -28 | Large persistent gap |
| Netherlands | -58 | -27 | Large persistent gap |
| Portugal | -32 | -25 | Moderate persistent gap |
| France | -51 | ~-20 | Large persistent gap |
| Switzerland | -53 | -19 | Moderate persistent gap |
| Belgium | >-55 | -17 | Moderate persistent gap |
| Spain | -32 | -7 | Small residual gap |
| Italy | -30 | Not significant | Gap eliminated by ESCS |
| Ireland | -8 | Not significant | Gap eliminated by ESCS |
| United Kingdom | +12 | +12 | Immigrant advantage |
| United States | Not significant | +16 | Immigrant advantage |
| New Zealand | +16 | +16 | Immigrant advantage |
| Australia | +26 | +26 | Immigrant advantage |
Negative = gap (native-born outperform immigrants). Positive = immigrant advantage (immigrants outperform).
Source: OECD PISA 2022 Results Volume I — Immigrant Background and Student Performance
What this data does not show
- On average across the OECD, 83% of the raw PISA gap is explained by socioeconomic factors. However, a residual gap of 17–42 points persists after ESCS correction in several European countries.
- Gaps vary greatly by country of origin, language of instruction, and parental education. Aggregate figures mask this diversity.
- Second-generation immigrants (born in the receiving country) tend to score significantly higher than first-generation, though this varies by country.
- PISA is a snapshot at age 15 and does not reflect lifetime educational outcomes.
- English-speaking countries (AU, NZ, US, UK) show immigrants outperforming native-born students — a different pattern from most of continental Europe.