Issues in comparing SPM results with Pisa scores

EVERY time the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) results are released, questions are inevitably raised on whether our standards are rising or falling, and comparisons between the SPM results and the country’s performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) quickly emerge.

These comparisons often lead to sweeping conclusions about the state of our education system.

But are SPM and Pisa meant to be compared in the first place? Yes, but only with care. Both offer valuable information, yet they serve different purposes, rest on different assumptions, and assess different dimensions of learning. Treating them as interchangeable indicators of success or failure oversimplifies a far more complex reality.

SPM is a national, curriculum-based, high-stakes examination. It measures how well students have mastered what they were taught over five years of secondary schooling. Its results carry direct consequences for certification, higher education, scholarships and future pathways.

In short, SPM focuses on individual achievement and curriculum mastery.

Pisa, by contrast, is a sample-based international assessment administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It does not test all students, nor does it affect individual progression. Instead, it evaluates how effectively 15-year-olds can apply what they know to unfamiliar, real-world problems in reading, mathematics, and science. Its concern is system-level performance, not individual results.

This distinction is crucial. SPM largely measures what students know from the prescribed syllabus; Pisa assesses what students can do with that knowledge in unfamiliar situations requiring reasoning, judgement and transfer of learning. The two are related, but they are not the same constructs.

An analogy may help. SPM is like a structured driving test under controlled conditions, where students demonstrate mastery of prescribed procedures. Pisa, by contrast, resembles navigating real traffic – dynamic, unpredictable and requiring judgement in the moment. A student may excel in one yet struggle in the other, and the reverse can also be true.

Pisa 2022 illustrates why interpretation must be careful. Malaysian students scored below OECD averages in mathematics (409), reading (388) and science (416), and only 41% reached the minimum proficiency in mathematics compared with 69% across OECD countries.

Yet, these figures need context. Many countries recorded declines after pandemic-related disruptions, and OECD analyses suggest some gaps narrowed partly because higher-achieving students declined more sharply than lower-achieving ones.

Pisa therefore provides important signals but not a full explanation of why differences exist.

The OECD itself has cautioned against simplistic interpretations of Pisa outcomes. It is not designed to replace national examinations or to rank countries as “successful” or “failing” in isolation. Rather, it functions as a diagnostic tool, highlighting strengths and areas requiring attention at the system level.

This does not mean one assessment is better than the other; they are complementary. SPM offers evidence about curriculum delivery, teaching effectiveness and student attainment.

Pisa offers insight into how well the system develops transferable skills needed beyond the classroom. Taken together, they provide a fuller picture.

Problems arise when one is used to dismiss the other. Declaring systemic failure solely from Pisa scores, or celebrating success simply because SPM results improve, reflects an overly simplistic reading of assessment data. It is like using a thermometer to measure wind speed: both tools are useful – but for different purposes.

Neither assessment should become a blunt instrument for assigning blame. Both are feedback mechanisms. SPM data can guide curriculum refinement, teacher development and targeted support. Pisa findings can inform longer-term reforms, especially in strengthening students’ capacity to apply knowledge across contexts.

Ultimately, the issue is not about which assessment matters more but how both can be interpreted wisely and used responsibly. In education, no single number can tell the whole story.

ALLA BAKSH MOHAMED AYUB KHAN and HAZRI JAMIL

School of Languages, Literacies and Translation

Universiti Sains Malaysia