What Level 2 means
PISA sorts results not only by points but by proficiency levels. The OECD treats Level 2 as the baseline: a pupil who reaches it can put a simple everyday situation into mathematical terms unprompted — comparing two routes, converting prices into another currency. A pupil below it struggles with exactly those tasks. In the Canaries that applies to 39.3 per cent; the Spanish figure, according to the tables quoted, is around one third and the OECD average around 35 per cent. The gap is real, but it is not a Canary anomaly — the whole field has moved downwards.
What PISA measures — and what it does not
PISA tests a sample of 15-year-olds, not whole year groups and not individual schools. In the Canaries, according to regional education department figures quoted by El Día on 9 September 2026, 1,645 pupils from 50 centres took part; across Spain around 30,000 from 956 centres. No league table of individual schools can be derived from it.
For converting points, the OECD works with roughly 20 points per school year, according to an explainer in El País of 9 September 2026 — while warning against taking that literally, because the value ranges from 7 to 26.5 points depending on the country. The 15 points between the Canaries and the Spanish average would on that basis be about three quarters of a school year.
The first cause sits inside the dataset
PISA records a socio-economic and cultural index for every pupil, the ISEC: parents' occupation and educational attainment, resources in the household. The Canaries come to −0.24 according to EFE (8 September 2026), Spain to −0.06 and Madrid to +0.32; only Murcia, Andalusia, Ceuta and Melilla are lower.
How strongly that bears on results is shown by the analysis La Provincia published on 9 September 2026: between the quarter of pupils with the highest ISEC and the quarter with the lowest there is a gap of 54 to 59 points within the Canaries — close to three school years. Family background creates a wider gap inside the archipelago than the archipelago has to the national average.
Repeating a year, and leaving early
The second explanation is grade repetition. According to the same analysis, pupils who have repeated a year are 8.67 times more likely to belong to the group with consistently low results. That establishes no direction of cause — repetition can itself follow earlier difficulties — but it shows how strongly problems concentrate there.
Then there is early school leaving: for 2025 the Ministry of Education, using EPA data, puts the Canaries at 15.9 per cent against 12.8 per cent for Spain. The regional education minister, Poli Suárez, attributed the rise in Canary media to young people taking up work early in the service sector. It counts for PISA because those tested stand exactly at that threshold.
Government, unions, statistics
On 8 September 2026 the regional president, Fernando Clavijo, called for "tranquilidad y sosiego" — calm and composure — while conceding that "things are not going well", and described PISA as the report with the worst data in the historical series. The education department points to staffing: 29,046 teachers in the public system for the 2026/27 school year, 2,351 more than at the start of the legislature, plus reduced class-size guidelines, from 30 to 25 in the third year of secondary school among others.
The STEC-IC union counters with funding shortfalls and calls for smaller classes and more specialist support staff; the CCOO education federation demands more investment nationally. Neither case can be proved from PISA alone. And one obvious question stays open: PISA 2025 publishes no results for individual islands.
What the figures do not support
New in this cycle is computational problem solving: the Canaries 488 points, Spain 499, the OECD average 500 according to the reports quoted. The gap there is markedly smaller than in mathematics.
cita.news reported on 3 July 2026 on a different piece of research: the study by the Fundación Ramón Areces and the Ivie finding that 6.2 per cent of Canary pupils count as high performers. It analysed older PISA data and looked at the top; the present report is the new OECD round itself and looks at the bottom threshold.