With Lebanese students scoring far below OECD averages in science, mathematics, reading and computer problem-solving, the real concern is not ranking but what years of crisis have done to learning.
When a Lebanese student scores 372 points in science compared with an OECD average of 482 in the Programme for International Student Assessment, it is easy to summarize the news with a headline such as: "Lebanon is Educationally Declining." But the numbers revealed by the PISA 2025 results deserve a deeper examination. The issue is not Lebanon's ranking on an international scale, nor is it about comparing a Lebanese student with one in Singapore or Japan. The real question is: What can our fifteen-year-old students actually do with what they have learned? This is precisely where the importance of the PISA test lies.
Organized regularly by the OECD, the test targets fifteen-year-old students and does not simply ask them what they have memorized from their textbooks. In the 2025 cycle, which focused primarily on science, PISA tested students' ability to scientifically interpret phenomena, read evidence, evaluate information, and use knowledge in unfamiliar situations. It also assessed reading and mathematics, while extensively examining computer problem-solving skills and learning in digital environments.
In other words, PISA does not simply ask the student: "What do you know?" It asks: What can you do with what you know? This is where Lebanon's results become concerning.
The average Lebanese student scored 372 points in science, compared with 482 in OECD countries. In mathematics, Lebanon scored 377 points versus 463, while in reading, the score was only 331 compared with 461. In computer problem-solving, Lebanese students scored 358 points against 500.
But averages alone do not reveal the extent of the problem. In science, approximately 66% of Lebanese students fall below Level 2, which PISA considers the minimum threshold for functional scientific competence. In mathematics, only 31% reach this level. The most painful figure is in reading: only 22% of fifteen-year-old Lebanese students possess the minimum reading proficiency according to PISA standards. This is where the real discussion may begin.
It may seem strange that the answer to Lebanon's weakness in science tests is: reading. But modern science is not learned by memorizing the definitions of "force," "cell," or "chemical reaction" alone. A student needs to read a text, understand data, distinguish between information and a claim, connect multiple sources, extract evidence, build a conclusion, and then defend it. The same applies to mathematics. Today's mathematical problem is not always a ready-made calculation; it might be a real-life situation that the student first needs to understand and then turn into a mathematical model.
Therefore, when nearly three-quarters of our students reach the age of fifteen without possessing the minimum required reading proficiency, reading becomes as much a problem for the physics, math, history, and geography teacher as it is for the language teacher. Perhaps for this reason, we need to move from the concept of "teaching reading" in the primary grades to the broader concept of "reading for learning" at all levels and across all subjects.
PISA results for Lebanon cannot be read outside the context of the last six years. The student who sat for the PISA test in 2025 was around nine or ten years old when the 2019 crisis began, followed by the COVID-19 pandemic, school closures, economic collapse, frequent strikes, reduced purchasing power among teachers, disruptions to the academic year, the Beirut explosion, the war, displacement, and the closure or use of schools as shelters.
These are not merely the social background to the results; they are part of the explanation for the results themselves. The World Bank estimates that public school students in Lebanon received about 270 days of in-class education over four turbulent academic years between 2019 and 2023, instead of approximately 600 days across four regular academic years. The bank estimates a learning loss equivalent to almost one to 1.2 adjusted learning years based on quality.
Here, we need to distinguish between two concepts we often confuse: educational loss and learning loss. A student who loses a hundred school days does not recover simply by making up classes or reteaching material. If a student does not master fractions in a certain grade, they enter the next grade unable to understand ratios. If their reading is weak, understanding science texts becomes harder. The gap grows wider year after year.
It is like compound interest, but in the reverse direction. Thus, years of learning loss cannot be addressed simply by reopening schools and completing the curriculum. Returning to school does not automatically mean learning recovery.
Nevertheless, there is a paradox worth highlighting. We might assume from these results that Lebanese students have lost their desire to learn. But PISA data says otherwise. About 69% of Lebanese students say they enjoy learning new things in school, a rate almost identical to the OECD average. The percentage of students who say they finish what they start is also about equal to the international average. Most notably, Lebanese students showed a higher goal-setting index than the OECD average.
So, the problem is not simply that "this generation doesn't want to learn." We have students who have ambitions and reasonable perseverance, but the indicators become weaker when we measure curiosity, asking for help, and the ability to change thinking strategies when faced with a new problem.
