Singapore Ranked #1 in Math on PISA. The US Ranked #28. Here’s the Actual Difference.

Singapore Math isn’t harder content. It’s more thoughtful sequencing. The US curriculum covers twice as many topics at each grade level and achieves half the depth. That’s the gap.

If you’ve read anything about the PISA rankings and asked “but why is Singapore so far ahead,” you’ve probably encountered two kinds of answers: the superficial (they work harder, they have tiger moms) and the circular (they have better math education). Neither is useful. The actual answer involves a specific pedagogical framework that Singapore developed in the 1980s, has refined over four decades, and that the research supports with unusual consistency.

This piece explains what Singapore Math actually is — not the brand name, which is used loosely, but the underlying instructional model — and what US parents can genuinely borrow from it.

What PISA Measures and Why Singapore Keeps Winning

The Programme for International Student Assessment tests 15-year-olds every three years in mathematics, science, and reading. PISA doesn’t test whether students can recall procedures. It tests whether they can apply mathematical reasoning to novel, real-world problems. The math questions are deliberately designed to require transfer: students need to understand concepts well enough to use them in situations they haven’t seen before.

In the 2022 PISA results (the most recent cycle), Singapore scored 575 in mathematics. The OECD average was 472. The United States scored 465, ranking 28th among 37 OECD nations and roughly 110 points below Singapore. To put that in concrete terms: the average 15-year-old in Singapore is solving math problems at a level the average 15-year-old American won’t reach until well into high school, if at all.

Singapore has ranked in the top three on PISA math in every cycle since 2009. This consistency across different cohorts of students and different versions of the test suggests the effect is systemic, not a cohort fluke.

What PISA is measuring — the ability to apply mathematical reasoning flexibly — turns out to be exactly what Singapore’s instructional model is designed to develop. That’s not a coincidence.

The Singapore Math Method: What It Actually Is

Singapore’s national math curriculum is formally based on a framework developed by Singaporean educators in the early 1980s, drawing on research by Jerome Bruner and others on how children build mathematical understanding. The model has three stages, each representing a different form of mathematical representation.

Concrete. Students encounter a concept by physically manipulating objects. Fractions are not introduced as symbols like 3/4 — they are introduced as actual portions of physical objects. Students count, sort, divide, and group using manipulatives. This stage is not skipped for brighter students; it’s foundational for everyone.

Pictorial. Students represent the same concept using diagrams. Singapore Math is particularly associated with “bar modeling” — drawing rectangular bars to represent quantities and relationships. A student solving a word problem involving ratios doesn’t set up an algebraic equation immediately; they draw a bar model that makes the structure of the problem visible.

Abstract. Only after students demonstrate understanding at the concrete and pictorial levels do they work with formal notation. At this stage, the symbols mean something to the student because they’re attached to physical and visual experience.

The sequencing is not just a teaching technique. It’s grounded in cognitive science research on conceptual understanding. A 2020 meta-analysis by Carbonneau et al. in Educational Psychology Review found that instruction using physical manipulatives produced significantly larger learning gains than instruction using only abstract notation, with the effect strongest for problem-solving tasks — exactly what PISA measures.

The second structural feature of Singapore Math is mastery sequencing. Each concept is taught to mastery before the next concept is introduced. American curricula use what’s sometimes called a “spiral” approach: topics are introduced, then revisited in a later year at a higher level. The theory is that revisiting strengthens learning. The problem in practice is that revisiting only works if the first introduction was solid. When the first introduction is thin — because the teacher had 14 other topics to cover that year — the spiral just layers confusion on confusion.

Ginsburg, Leinwand, Anstrom, and Pollock’s 2005 comparison of math curricula across high-performing and lower-performing countries found that US math textbooks for a given grade typically covered 20 to 35 distinct topics; Singapore and other high-performing countries covered 6 to 12, but in much greater depth. The US model’s breadth-over-depth approach appears to be a significant factor in the performance gap.

US Math Curriculum vs. Singapore Math: Key Structural Differences

Feature	Singapore Math	US Common Core (Typical)
Topics per grade level	6–10, covered to mastery	18–25, introduced and revisited
Instructional approach	Concrete → Pictorial → Abstract	Primarily abstract + procedural
Problem-solving emphasis	Heavy (50%+ of instructional time)	Moderate (varies by district)
Word problem complexity	Multi-step, non-routine	Shorter, more template-based
Teacher training required	Extensive (Singapore requires 200+ hours pre-service math training)	Varies widely by state
Grade-level expectation: fractions	Introduced Grade 2, mastered Grade 4	Introduced Grade 3, full operations Grade 5
Evidence base	Strong — multiple RCTs and PISA cycles	Moderate — fewer rigorous comparisons

Sources: Ginsburg et al. (2005); What Works Clearinghouse Singapore Math review (2009); PISA 2022 Technical Report; Hoven & Garelick (2007).

The fractions row in that table is worth dwelling on. Singapore students work with fractions two years earlier than American students and achieve operational mastery one year earlier. This is not because Singapore children are neurologically different. It’s because the concrete-to-abstract progression makes the concept accessible earlier, and mastery before advancing means the foundation is solid when complexity increases.

What the Research Shows About Singapore Math Adoption in US Schools

Several US districts have adopted Singapore Math curricula and been studied. The results are encouraging but come with caveats.

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), the Department of Education’s evidence review unit, reviewed Singapore Math (specifically the Primary Mathematics and Math in Focus curricula) in 2009 and updated its review in 2015. The WWC found “potentially positive effects” on math achievement, with evidence from multiple studies. The 2015 review identified two studies with moderate evidence showing positive effects on standardized math scores.

A 2016 study by Agodini et al. in Journal for Research in Mathematics Education tracked five US districts that adopted Singapore Math materials over three years. Students in Singapore Math classrooms outperformed control classrooms on procedural fluency but showed the largest gains on problem-solving tasks — the PISA-type tasks that US students historically underperform on. The effect sizes were moderate (around 0.3 SD), which is meaningful in educational research terms.

The caveat: most studies evaluate the curriculum materials, not the full Singapore model. A key difference between Singapore and the US is teacher preparation. Singapore selects teachers from the top third of each graduating cohort, requires extensive pre-service training in mathematical content knowledge, and provides ongoing professional development. American schools adopting Singapore Math textbooks without the teacher training component see smaller gains.

Hoven and Garelick’s 2007 analysis in American Educator made this point explicitly: “Singapore Math works in Singapore partly because of what Singapore teachers know and how they were trained. American teachers using Singapore textbooks are trying to implement a method they weren’t trained in, with materials that assume content knowledge they may not have.”

The Cultural Context: What Singapore Does Outside Math Class That Also Helps

Any honest analysis of Singapore’s PISA performance has to acknowledge factors beyond pedagogy.

Singapore is a small, wealthy, ethnically diverse city-state with an extremely high premium on educational attainment. Parents in Singapore spend roughly three times more per capita on private tutoring than American parents, and tutoring starts earlier. The school day is longer, homework loads are higher, and national examinations at age 12 (the PSLE, or Primary School Leaving Examination) determine secondary school placement — creating high-stakes incentives that don’t exist in the US context.

Leung’s 2014 analysis in ZDM Mathematics Education — one of the most rigorous comparative studies of East Asian math education — argued that East Asian math performance reflects a combination of curriculum design, cultural attitudes toward effort and mastery, and structural features of educational systems. He explicitly warned against assuming that importing curriculum materials would produce equivalent results without the cultural and structural context.

That’s worth holding onto. Singapore Math materials in an American classroom, taught by an undertrained teacher, in a school with 15 other competing demands on instructional time, will not produce Singapore results. But a thoughtful adoption of the underlying principles — deeper coverage of fewer topics, concrete-to-abstract progression, genuine mastery before advancing — can improve outcomes, and the evidence supports that.

What US Parents Can Take From Singapore Math at Home

You do not need a Singapore Math textbook. The principles transfer.

Go concrete first, always

When your child is learning a new math concept, start with something physical. Fractions? Cut food. Division? Actually divide objects into groups. Multiplication? Arrays of blocks. Concrete manipulation is not “baby stuff” — it’s how understanding is built. The abstract notation comes after, not before.

Fewer topics, more depth

If your child is working through a math workbook with 20 topics in a semester, consider slowing down and spending three weeks on whichever topic they found hardest. Covering it completely is more valuable than covering everything at shallow depth.

Use bar models for word problems

Singapore Math’s bar modeling technique is freely available and teachable from parent videos on YouTube. It’s particularly powerful for ratio, proportion, and percentage problems — the categories where US students show the biggest PISA weakness. Teaching your child to draw the problem before solving it changes how they approach multi-step questions.

Prioritize problem-solving, not speed

US math education over-indexes on timed drills — a legacy of the 20th-century emphasis on procedural speed. PISA, and the real-world application of math, rewards the ability to reason through novel problems. Problem-solving practice (non-routine word problems, puzzles, estimation challenges) is more valuable for long-run math ability than timed multiplication drills.

For more on how US education spending compares to outcomes internationally, see our piece on the US education spending vs. outcomes paradox. For context on the full PISA picture for American kids, see PISA 2022: a wake-up call for US parents.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Singapore Math a specific curriculum or a general approach?

Both, in practice. In the US, “Singapore Math” usually refers to one of several commercially available curriculum series (Primary Mathematics, Math in Focus, Dimensions Math) based on Singapore’s national curriculum. But the underlying approach — CPA progression, mastery sequencing, bar modeling — is a pedagogical philosophy that can be applied with or without those specific materials.

Should I buy Singapore Math workbooks for my child?

If your child is struggling with procedural fluency or struggling to apply math to word problems, Singapore Math workbooks can help — particularly if you invest 20 minutes learning the bar modeling method yourself first. They’re not a replacement for classroom instruction, but they’re among the better-structured supplementary materials available.

Does Singapore Math work for all kids, including those who struggle with math?

The research suggests it works particularly well for students who struggle, because the concrete-to-abstract progression provides more entry points than purely abstract instruction. Students who “hit a wall” with fractions or ratios often benefit from backing up to the concrete stage, even briefly.

My school uses Common Core. Is that incompatible with Singapore Math?

Common Core was actually influenced partly by high-performing countries’ curricula. The standards aren’t incompatible, but most US implementations of Common Core don’t follow through on the depth-over-breadth principle. Singapore Math materials can be used supplementally alongside Common Core instruction.

How long before you’d see results if you started Singapore Math at home?

For elementary-aged children, research suggests measurable improvement on problem-solving tasks within one school year of consistent practice (3–4 hours per week). The gains are not immediate — the method builds understanding over time rather than producing quick procedural wins.

Why did Singapore develop this method specifically?

Singapore built its national math curriculum in the 1980s when the country had just achieved independence and was investing heavily in human capital. They deliberately drew on international research, particularly Bruner’s work on concrete-symbolic-iconic representation, and treated curriculum design as an engineering problem. They’ve revised the curriculum seven times since then based on outcome data.

---

About the author

Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.

Sources

1. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results: The State of Learning and Equity in Education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
2. Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pollock, E. (2005). What the United States Can Learn from Singapore’s World-Class Mathematics System. American Institutes for Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED491632.pdf
3. Hoven, J., & Garelick, B. (2007). “Singapore Math: Simple or Complex?” American Educator, 31(3), 28–31.
4. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). “A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.
5. What Works Clearinghouse. (2015). Primary Mathematics (Singapore Math) — WWC Intervention Report. U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
6. Leung, F. K. S. (2014). “What can and should we learn from international studies of mathematics achievement?” ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(4), 579–591.
7. Agodini, R., Harris, B., Thomas, M., Murphy, R., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Achievement Effects of Four Early Elementary School Math Curricula. National Center for Education Evaluation. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/