English in Japan: What Rankings Can Tell Us

Start with the people behind the number

When a national English ranking appears, the argument often begins with the verdict. It should begin with the sample. Who took the test? Which skills were assessed? What decision was the assessment designed to support?

An online volunteer, an applicant to an overseas university and a pupil included in a school survey enter the data for different reasons. Their results answer different questions. Combining them into one judgment about “Japanese people’s English” does not make the judgment more comprehensive. It makes the population harder to identify.

That distinction matters to teaching. A result may justify examining a problem, but choosing what to teach requires evidence about the learner in front of us.

Read the 2025 result precisely

The 2025 EF English Proficiency Index placed Japan 96th among 123 countries and regions, with a score of 446 and the label Very low proficiency. The reported global average was 488. These are the report’s figures and classification, not a description of every resident.

EF’s methodology states that participants are self-selected and are not guaranteed to represent their countries. Participation also requires internet access. A large sample does not remove those selection problems.

The result is worth examining. It does not identify a cause, prove the quality of a particular school, or tell us that an individual cannot communicate. A change in rank also depends on the other countries included and their results. A league position is a poor substitute for tracing a comparable measure over time.

When quoting the index, keep the edition, score, population limitations and question of interest together. A screenshot stripped of those details can travel much farther than its explanation.

Check what the curriculum asks for, then what learners do

It is too simple to say that Japanese education officially wants only grammar and translation. MEXT’s upper-secondary foreign-language curriculum includes listening, reading, speaking through interaction, speaking through production, and writing. It explicitly connects knowledge of language with communication.

A curriculum describes intended learning. To examine delivery, we need evidence about tasks, time, feedback and assessment in the setting concerned. MEXT’s FY2025 English Education Implementation Survey, with a reference date of 1 February 2026, concerns public secondary schools and related special-needs provision. It is a different source from a voluntary adult test and should be read as such.

My practical question is whether the assessments and classroom activities reward the stated goal. If learners will need to explain decisions, do they practise explaining them? If an assessment accepts only a selected answer, where do learners receive feedback on making a request or responding to disagreement? Those are questions to investigate locally, not conclusions supplied by the national ranking.

Count uses, not just contact

For planning purposes, distinguish encountering English from having to accomplish something with it. Reading subtitles, following a tutorial and negotiating a meeting time are all useful activities, but they make different demands.

A learner who uses Japanese throughout their working day may need to arrange English interaction deliberately. Another learner may already have frequent international contact and need support with a narrow professional task. Nationality does not tell us which situation applies.

Try a one-week record with three columns: what you understood, what you said or wrote, and what response you received. The record can reveal an imbalance worth addressing. It cannot establish a national pattern, and it need not. Its purpose is to improve this learner’s plan.

A useful comparison makes the conditions visible

Before comparing two learners, ask about their goals, previous study, available time, access to feedback and opportunities to use English. A learner preparing a conference talk and one preparing an entrance examination may sensibly spend their time differently.

Comparisons become unfair when these conditions disappear and the result is attributed to effort or character. They also become less useful. “Try harder” does not specify what a learner should change.

For schools and employers, a better review asks who receives practice opportunities and who does not. If participation requires extra money, travel or working outside paid hours, access belongs in the evaluation. These are proposed questions for programme review, not findings established by EF’s country score.

A ranking cannot plan Monday’s lesson

Here is an original classroom task. Two learners must choose a time for a meeting. Each has a different schedule and one constraint the other person cannot see. They must agree on a time and send a short confirmation naming the date, time and purpose.

First observe the attempt. Did they ask about missing information? Did they detect a conflict? Does the written confirmation match the agreement? Teach one useful improvement and try again with new schedules.

The second attempt gives evidence about this task. Later, use a different situation to see whether the improvement carries over. Neither attempt supplies an overall proficiency level. It does give the teacher information that a national average cannot.

The same principle applies to advanced study. A learner who misses a lecture may need vocabulary work, help recognising familiar words in connected speech, or practice following the argument. The advanced-listening assessment guide develops a way to investigate those possibilities.

Japan’s ranking deserves a careful reading. The useful educational response is to turn a broad concern into a question we can investigate, then into a change we can evaluate.

Sources

1. EF Education First. EF EPI, 2025 edition; Japan results; methodology. Edition checked 1 October 2026.
2. MEXT. Upper-secondary Course of Study, Foreign Languages, English translation, especially the objectives and five skill areas.
3. MEXT. FY2025 English Education Implementation Survey, scope and reference date.

The classroom task and programme-review questions are the author’s recommendations. They are not causal findings from these reports. Prepared with AI-assisted editing. More writing by Mark Zolotar.