Madrid, September 10, 2026 – At CICAE, we view the PISA 2025 results with great concern. Compared to Spain’s scores of 451 in reading, 457 in math, and 477 in science, students from the 18 CICAE schools assessed in 2023 scored, respectively, 521, 525, and 517 points. We’re talking about differences of 70 points in reading, 68 in math, and 40 in science, equivalent to more than two school years of average performance.
It is important to note that the advantage of CICAE centers remains even after applying the socioeconomic and cultural index correction. The family context influences performance and must be taken into account, but it does not, on its own, explain these results. There are also educational initiatives, teaching practices, and organizational decisions that are working well and from which we can learn.
At CICAE, we are firmly committed to external assessments, especially when they are international and competency-based. PISA does not merely check whether students have memorized the content specific to a particular curriculum, educational system, or autonomous community; rather, it analyzes how they are able to apply what they have learned to solve problems and navigate their personal and professional futures.
The main purpose of these tests is not to produce rankings, but rather to provide information to each school. The PISA reports for schools have enabled our schools to identify strengths and areas for improvement, launch specific projects, and subsequently assess their effectiveness. Evaluation is not about pointing fingers or assigning blame; it is about gathering evidence to improve.
Another finding that warrants specific analysis is that of the Community of Madrid, which in PISA 2025 leads Spain in mathematics and science and ranks second in reading. Madrid scores 469 points in reading, 477 in math, and 495 in science, above the averages for Spain, the OECD, and the European Union.
In this community, there is also a particularly significant number of privately owned schools, including both state-subsidized and fully private, independent schools. It would be very interesting to have the results broken down by school district and to analyze the extent to which school autonomy, staff stability, and the development of school-based educational projects are contributing to this improved performance.
We do not claim that this relationship has been proven or that school ownership alone explains the results. To draw rigorous conclusions, it would be essential to compare equivalent schools and always account for socioeconomic and cultural factors. We recognize quite clearly that the family context influences performance, but we also believe it is necessary to study the added value that autonomy, continuity in projects, and certain educational practices can provide.
This culture of assessment stands in contrast to what often happens with education policies. Successive laws and reforms are not being evaluated with the rigor, consistency, and time needed to determine what works and what needs to be corrected. Legislative instability creates confusion, hinders the implementation of educational initiatives, and undermines schools’ autonomy.
We also believe it is necessary to bring clarity to the debate on screens. The use of cell phones during leisure time and in a family setting cannot be equated with the planned and supervised educational use of technology at school. The heavy use of cell phones outside the classroom is having a very negative impact on children’s and adolescents’ attention spans, deep reading, rest, and ability to concentrate. That is where we need to focus much of our attention.
In schools, on the other hand, screens are generally used in a much more limited and supervised way, and their use is tied to specific educational goals. The challenge is not to reject all technology, but to prevent it from replacing reading, writing, reasoning, and intellectual effort.
The PISA results should prompt us to reflect deeply, but also to take action. We need to evaluate educational policies more effectively, provide schools with stability and autonomy, revive reading and sustained attention, and use technology in a pedagogically sound manner. The experience of CICAE schools shows that external evaluation, when it leads to decisions and improvement initiatives, can produce results.
