Equity without excellence? A critical analysis of Kazakhstan’s pisa reading results

Main Article Content

Abstract

Kazakhstan’s performance in the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) reveals a paradox that demands critical reflection. On the one hand, the country has made progress in reducing disparities in reading achievement between urban and rural students, signaling a step toward greater educational equity. On the other hand, overall proficiency levels remain alarmingly low, raising questions about whether equity is being pursued at the expense of excellence. According to official PISA data, only 36% of Kazakhstani students reached Level 2 or higher in reading, compared to the OECD average of 74%. At this minimum level, students are expected to identify the main idea in moderately complex texts, locate information based on explicit criteria, and reflect on the purpose and form of texts when guided to do so. Even more concerning is the near absence of high achievers: a mere 1% of students attained Level 5 or above, far below the OECD average of 7%. These students, in contrast, demonstrate the ability to comprehend lengthy texts, grapple with abstract or counterintuitive concepts, and distinguish fact from opinion based on implicit cues. This dual reality—equity gains alongside weak overall performance—raises pressing questions about the quality and direction of Kazakhstan’s educational reforms. The narrowing of the urban–rural gap is a positive achievement, yet the low proportion of students attaining both minimum and advanced proficiency suggests systemic weaknesses in reading instruction and literacy development. More importantly, the results point to a deficit in functional reading literacy, the ability not only to understand texts but to use, evaluate, and critically engage with information in real-life contexts. In the contemporary information society, where individuals are inundated with data from digital and traditional media, functional literacy has become a foundational skill for successful adaptation, lifelong learning, and active citizenship. Without functional reading literacy, students may be able to “cope” with basic tasks but lack the skills to think critically, analyze sources, and participate meaningfully in academic and civic life. This raises concerns about the sustainability of Kazakhstan’s educational progress: equity without excellence risks producing superficial gains that fail to prepare students for the demands of modern society. Thus, the urgent challenge is not only to close gaps in access but to raise the overall quality of reading literacy, ensuring that equity and excellence advance together.


Google Scholar


Article Details

How to Cite
Baigozhina, A., Tastemirova, A., & Zhaukumova, S. (2026). Equity without excellence? A critical analysis of Kazakhstan’s pisa reading results. Scientific Collection «InterConf», (281), 61–76. Retrieved from https://archive.interconf.center/index.php/conference-proceeding/article/view/7818

References

Jumanova, S. (2024). Analysis of PISA test results in Uzbekistan and prospects of preparing primary education students for PISA test. Nordik ilmiy-amaliy elektron jurnali.

Sjøberg, S., & Jenkins, E. (2022). PISA: a political project and a research agenda. Studies in Science Education, 58(1), 1-14.

Frey, A., König, C., & Fink, A. (2025). A highly adaptive testing design for PISA. Journal of Educational Measurement, 62(3), 415-437.

Balán, L. (2025). Educational quality in strategic negotiation: a critical discourse analysis of the rebranding of the PISA 2025 Science test rationale. Research Papers in Education, 40(6), 871-894.

Kusmaryono, I., & Kusumaningsih, W. (2023). Evaluating the Results of PISA Assessment: Are There Gaps Between the Teaching of Mathematical Literacy at Schools and in PISA Assessment?. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(3).

Pokropek, A., Marks, G. N., & Borgonovi, F. (2022). How much do students’ scores in PISA reflect general intelligence and how much do they reflect specific abilities?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5), 1121.

Rios, J. A., & Soland, J. (2022). An investigation of item, examinee, and country correlates of rapid guessing in PISA. International Journal of Testing, 22(2), 154-184.

Boman, B. (2023). Is the SES and academic achievement relationship mediated by cognitive ability? Evidence from PISA 2018 using data from 77 countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1045568.

Pulkkinen, J., & Rautopuro, J. (2022). The correspondence between PISA performance and school achievement in Finland. International Journal of Educational Research, 114, 102000.

İdil, Ş., Gülen, S., & Dönmez, İ. (2024). What should we understand from PISA 2022 results?. Journal of STEAM Education, 7(1), 1-9.

Lewalter, D., Diedrich, J., Goldhammer, F., Köller, O., & Reiss, K. (Eds.). (2023). PISA 2022: Analyse der Bildungsergebnisse in Deutschland. Waxmann Verlag.

Wu, Y. (2025). Scientific Literacy in Asia: Insights from the Top-Performing Economies in PISA 2022. International Journal of Asian Education, 6(1), 1-16.