I originally published this in 2009. Unfortunately, it’s still very much relevant. There are a few relatively minor changes.
I offer this rant partly to get things off my chest -- I think I now officially qualify for the title "grumpy old man", even though I don't much care for the "old" part -- but even more so as a topic which teachers may like to raise with their students. The basic question is, I think, is technology being used inappropriately, or intrusively or even, ultimately, ridiculously?
I visited my local supermarket yesterday and decided to use the self-service check-out. This is a very advanced service which seems to require there to be at least two members of staff on hand at all times in order to sort out the problems it comes up with. If I tell you that I, of all people, have developed what amounts to a phobia about using it you may get a sense of how awful I think it is most of the time.
It isn't that the problems which arise are terrible in themselves, just that it's so embarrassing when a line of people is building up behind you. And that's another thing: it works perfectly when nobody else is around....
Just to put the positive side to the equation, I will admit to having found it much faster, sometimes, than the normal check-out, and it is undoubtedly more fun. There is a video game-type display showing you what to do, and a voice which guides you though the process. That voice is female and was chosen, I am certain, to sooth the nerves of people such as myself and thereby prevent acts of vandalism directed towards the machinery.
But yesterday even I was floored by a message that appeared on the screen.
Before going any further, I have to inform non-UK residents that we in England have reached the point where anyone who sells anything is scared to death of being sued. Thus it is that if you buy a drink from a fast food outlet you'll see a notice on the cup informing you that the contents may be hot -- even if you've purchased an iced tea. On foodstuffs, just about everything contains the warning, "May contain nuts". Bizarrely, bags of nuts do not come with such a warning. I must contact my attorney....
Even food which could not possibly contain anything even resembling a nut comes with the caution that it may contain traces of nuts, or that it was processed on machinery that may once have been used to process nuts.
Medicine packets list every single possible side effect of the contents therein. So, if three years ago someone took one of these tablets and then two weeks later his left leg dropped off, one of the possible side effects listed will be "May cause leg to drop off."
Back to the supermarket. The way it works is that you scan the item, then drop it into a plastic bag. The item shows up on the screen, then you're ready to put the next one on. One of the items last night was a box of painkillers. I scanned it, dropped it in the bag, and then had a warning message appear reading something like: "You have bought painkillers. You cannot buy any more unless you are authorised to do so. Are you authorised to do so? Yes/No"
Authorised? By whom? My mother? The store manager? I pressed "Yes" and it let me continue. In discussion with my wife we decided that it must be the store's way of protecting itself against prosecution by the families of people who decide to end it all by taking an overdose of painkillers. Presumably such people are too depressed to think about buying one huge box, buying several small boxes in several shops, or just to press "Yes". Perhaps there is some law that states that nobody is allowed to sell anyone more than one box of painkillers at a time.
Perhaps this idea could be extended to other areas of modern life? How about this: when you press the button on a traffic light, suppose a message came up: "Crossing the road is dangerous. Have you been authorised to do so?"
Homes could be fitted with such a system, so that as you go out of the house you're warned that "There are muggers and drunk drivers out there. Don't do it!" And when you put your key in the door to come in: "You do realise, I hope, that most accidents happen in the home? Do yourself a favour and head to the nearest hotel. Here's a list of the nearest ones which have vacancies..."
And by the way, I do hope you've printed this out to read. Computers use electricity, and electricity is dangerous. Make sure you've been authorised.
information board, by Terry Freedman. This sort of summarises what I consider to be the usefulness of PISA, when you get right down to it.
I used AI to trawl through the latest PISA stats. These pertained to 2025 and were published in September 2026. One AI seemed to believe the most recent results were from 2022. Weird. With AI, it really is a matter of caveat emptor! OK, let’s get into it.
The results
ChatGPT Prompt: summarise latest PISA results (2025) in the fields of English, maths and computing.
Yes. One important clarification first: the PISA 2025 results were actually published on 8 September 2026, so they are now the latest PISA results. PISA tests 15-year-olds. Also, PISA does not have a subject called “English”: it tests reading. Computing is represented by a new computational problem-solving assessment. (OECD)
PISA 2025 — the headline picture
Reading / “English”
OECD reading fell dramatically: −14 points since 2022 and −28 since 2015.
The UK was much more resilient: 494, essentially unchanged from 2022.
80% of UK pupils reached Level 2 or above, compared with 69% across the OECD.
9% of UK pupils were high performers (Level 5+), against 6% OECD.
Particularly worrying internationally is deterioration in evaluating information, connecting information across sources and critical reading—skills especially relevant in the age of AI.
Mathematics
OECD average: 463, down 9 points since 2022 and 22 points since 2015.
UK: 488, down just 1 point since 2022, a statistically insignificant change.
74% of UK pupils reached Level 2+, compared with 65% OECD.
13% of UK pupils were Level 5/6 high performers, versus 8% OECD.
The UK nevertheless has a sizeable gender gap: boys outperformed girls by 24 points, compared with an OECD average gap of 13.
Computing This is the really interesting new bit for an ICT/Computing perspective. PISA 2025 introduced computational problem solving rather than simply testing computer knowledge or programming in isolation. It examines how pupils use computational tools and practices to model problems, experiment, program and create digital products.
OECD average: 500
UK: 523
UK therefore performs significantly above the OECD average.
The highest scores were Macao 572, Singapore 563, B-S-J-Z China 560 and Japan 557.
The UK was roughly alongside Canada and ahead of countries such as Switzerland, Czechia and Ireland.
An interesting finding is that computational problem-solving correlates strongly with maths (0.75) and science (0.76), but it isn’t simply another version of those subjects: PISA says it measures a distinct set of skills.
The really significant story
For England/UK education, I’d reduce the results to three messages:
1. The UK is doing considerably better than the OECD average. The UK is one of the systems in the top ten in all three core PISA subjects: science, mathematics and reading.
2. The international deterioration in reading and maths is much more alarming than the UK figures initially suggest. The OECD has reached its lowest-ever average performance in reading and mathematics. The UK has largely avoided the dramatic falls seen elsewhere, particularly in reading.
3. “Computing” is no longer just about knowing how to code. The new PISA assessment is arguably more interesting educationally: it asks whether students can use computational thinking, tools, experimentation, modelling and programming to solve unfamiliar problems and create things. That’s potentially a much better fit with where school Computing is heading.
One other striking PISA finding for anyone working in EdTech: moderate educational use of digital devices is associated with better outcomes, whereas excessive use and digital distraction are associated with worse outcomes. 28% of OECD pupils said classmates were distracted by devices during most or every science lesson. AI use also produced a complicated picture rather than the simple “AI = better learning” story.
PISA misgivings
I made a note of what was wrong with the PISA comparisons in my opinion, and then asked At what the objections to it were. (I’m relieved to report that it came up with the same list!)
Perplexity prompt: What are the misgivings about PISA as a means of measuring and comparing education achievement?
There are deep and well-documented misgivings about using PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment) as the primary means of measuring and comparing educational achievement across countries. Critics argue that its design, assumptions, and the way its results are used make it a poor basis for judging school systems or driving policy.
Core conceptual criticisms
Narrow definition of “achievement”: PISA focuses on reading, mathematics and science literacy at age 15, but ignores many valued outcomes of education such as creativity, citizenship, arts, ethics, social skills, and subject-specific knowledge in history, geography, languages, etc
Unproven claim about “skills for the future”: PISA presents itself as measuring competencies needed for modern life and economies, but scholars note there is little empirical evidence that its items validly capture these broader life skills, or that they are universally applicable across very different societies.
Western-centric, monolithic view: The test assumes a single set of skills and knowledge is desirable everywhere, which critics say imposes a largely Western, OECD-style vision of education on diverse cultures and systems.
Methodological and statistical concerns
Cross-sectional, not longitudinal: Each PISA cycle tests a different sample of 15-year-olds; it does not follow cohorts over time. That limits what can be inferred about the impact of specific policies or reforms, because you’re not seeing the same students’ progress.
Measurement error and unstable rankings: Country rankings often hinge on small differences that sit within the tests’ error margins. When error terms and confidence intervals are properly considered, many “gains” or “drops” in league tables are not statistically meaningful.
Sampling and representativeness issues: In some high-profile cases (e.g., Shanghai), results have been based on subsets of students that are not representative of the whole population, yet those results are used to hold up entire systems as models.
Context ignored: PISA does not adequately adjust for differences in family academic resources, socio-economic context, enrolment rates, or the proportion of students actually in school at age 15, all of which strongly influence average scores.
Curriculum and policy distortions
Curriculum narrowing: Because PISA rankings carry high political stakes, systems often narrow the curriculum toward tested areas, marginalising arts, humanities, and other subjects not measured by PISA.
Teaching to the test and “PISA industry”: The pressure to climb the rankings encourages test-focused teaching, short-term policy fixes, and a market in PISA-aligned materials and consultancy, rather than deep, sustainable educational improvement.
Misuse for causal claims: Politicians and commentators frequently treat correlations between PISA scores and economic outcomes as if they were causal, despite the well-known “correlation is not causation” problem and flawed temporal logic in some influential reports.
Governance and conflict-of-interest worries
OECD as tester and policy interpreter: The OECD both administers the test and interprets the results for policy purposes, creating a potential conflict of interest and reinforcing a particular policy narrative (often aligned with market-oriented reforms).
Neoliberal policy driver: Critics argue PISA’s ideology promotes competition, standardisation, and accountability regimes that fit a neoliberal agenda rather than a broader educational vision.
Practical comparability problems
Different systems, different aims: Educational systems value different things (e.g., vocational pathways, local languages, civic education). PISA’s single metric cannot capture these differing goals, yet its league tables imply a universal hierarchy.
Within-country variation larger than between-country differences: In large, diverse countries (e.g., the US), differences between states or regions can be bigger than differences between nations, making national averages misleading for policy.
Leaving aside issues of copyright and related matters, two things strike me about this question. Firstly, if students can cheat by using AI to complete their assignments. does that not imply that the assignments were not fit for purpose in the first place (assuming the purpose was to assess students’ knowledge and understanding of the particular topic?) The challenge, surely, is to devise assignments that require more than answers based on probability.
For example, one thing that Al is pretty good at, notwithstanding its hallucinations, is searching the web and even documents on the web in some circumstances. So getting students to do the research in order to do something with the results, rather than getting AI to do the grunt work, seems to me like some teachers I’ve observed getting their students to enter data into a spreadsheet in order to carry out calculations and predictions. What tends to happen is that by the end of the lesson some students have not even finished entering the data. It’s a complete waste of everybody’s time. Much better to furnish students with a populated spreadsheet so that they can focus on what sort of formulae to insert in order to complete the task.
By analogy, I think getting AI to do the heavy lifting in terms of research makes sense. Yes, they will have to spend a bit a time evaluating AI’s results, but in my opinion it would still be a better use of time.
Or perhaps, as a compromise, they could carry out the research in the old way (!), or write down what they think might be the points that come up, and then use AI as a check. That’s what I did with my piece on objections to PISA (see below). I made a note of what was wrong with it in my opinion, and then asked At what the objections to it were. (I’m relieved to report that it came up with the same list!)
The other thing that strikes me about the question of whether it matters if students use AI is that it is similar to a question I liked to put to ed tech coordinators when Microsoft introduced wizards, My question was: if a student uses a wizard to, say, produce a leaflet, rather than create it themselves, does that suggest that they have a high level a digital literacy or a low level? It always led to a lively debate, but my own view was that getting a wizard to get something in place that you could then amend and adjust was a much better use of time than painstakingly creating it from scratch.
We all know that things tend to be cheaper per unit the more you buy. If you are the edtech co-ordinator for your school. undertake an audit of the software in use-which you should do anyway to check you have enough licences — and who bought it. You may discover, as I did when I took on the role of head of computing, that two departments had, unknown to each other, bought the same software. They had paid for 30 licences, but by renewing the licences centrally I was able to purchase 60 licences for less than double the cost of 30, so both the school and each of these departments saved some money.
Headteachers have a habit of making up shortfalls in some areas by taking the money from those departments that have managed to save some money in order to make a big purchase. It feels like a betrayal, it feels like robbery, and the long-term outcome is that either the head of department finds a job elsewhere or they adopt a policy of spend, spend, spend once they receive their capitation allowance at the start of the year. In my option, robbing Peter to pay Paul is, ultimately, a policy almost designed to give rise to perverse incentives.
Another unintended consequence, which follows on from this, is that if you manage to save a tidy sum of money the Head is likely to come to the conclusion that you clearly did not need that amount of money in the first place. The outcome will be that your careful financial management will be rewarded by being given less money next time.
In both of these scenarios the quite reasonable conclusion the head of departtment could come to is that the best policy is to spend as much money as possible, preferably the whole of your capitation allowance — if not more. Please note: I am not advocating this, just making the point that it is a likely outcome.
