This issue

ACHIEVEMENT IN MOST OF AMERICA's public schools can be predicted by income, race, language background, and other demographic variables. According to W. Edwards Deming (1986), organizations achieve what they are structured to achieve. Thus, one must question whether the U.S. system of public education is structured in a manner that is likely to result in these achievement gaps. As well, one must question whether we could close achievement gaps by changing existing structures.

By 1860 the debate about common schooling was largely resolved, resulting in a system of free public education for the nation's children. However, the system was never structured to fulfill the original vision. From the beginning, many students were excluded based on race, gender, income level, and ability. In fact, the notion of universal access was abandoned, or at least much more narrowly defined, within the context of an industrial age that did not require the masses to be educated. Public education became part of the nation's system for sorting those who would have access to higher levels of education and opportunity from those who would not.

In the last half of the 20th century, access to education was promised to larger segments of the population. Brown v. Topeka declared that separate was unequal, Lyndon Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Education Act promised equal educational opportunity for children in low-income communities, Title IX sought to ensure equal access by gender, Lau v. Nichols required schools to address the needs of language minority students, and Public Law 94-142 ensured a free and appropriate public education for children with disabilities. Nonetheless, achievement gaps persisted. Although the mantra of the 1980s and 1990s might have been "all children can learn," student performance data indicated that not all children succeeded in school. In fact, state assessment scores, college entrance exams, dropouts rates, advanced placement enrollments, reading inventories, and many other indicators generally confirmed that some groups of students were more likely to succeed and other student groups were more likely to fail.

These achievement gaps persist today. For instance, on the National Assessment of Educational Progress administered in 2003, only 13% of African American and 15% of Hispanic fourth-grade students demonstrated proficiency in reading, compared to 41% of White students and 38% of Asian students. Similarly, only 7% of African American and 12% of Hispanic eighth-grade students demonstrated proficiency in mathematics, compared to 37% of White students and 43% of Asian students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004a).

In 2001, the event dropout rate (the percentage of students who were enrolled in high school on October 1, but 1 year later were not enrolled and had not completed high school) was six times higher for students in the bottom 20% of family incomes than for students in the top 20% of family incomes (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004b).

In 2001, a bipartisan Congressional majority passed the No Child Left Behind Act. Although critics have assailed details of the legislation, few seem willing to challenge the underlying premise that achievement gaps should be eliminated. Even if the law is "fixed and funded" as some demand, there will likely remain both federal and state mandates requiring schools and districts to close achievement gaps and help all students achieve challenging academic standards.

The theory of action implied in this federal policy (and many similar state policies) proceeds from the concept of standards-based reform. The theory suggests that, to close achievement gaps, education systems must accomplish the following:

1. Create a common understanding of what all students should know and be able to do (i.e., academic content standards) so that all children in all schools will be provided instruction aligned to the same standards, reducing disparities in the rigor of instruction provided to diverse groups of students.

2. Assess and monitor student learning of academic standards so that schools can identify learning needs and adapt instruction accordingly, ensuring that instruction improves in a manner that reduces achievement gaps over time.

3. Equip teacher candidates with the knowledge, dispositions, and skills necessary to teach the academic standards to all students, so all students will be provided highly qualified teachers. Similarly, improve the knowledge, dispositions, and skills of practicing teachers.

4. Equip school leaders with the knowledge, dispositions, and skills necessary to facilitate improvements in instruction such that all students learn the academic standards.

5. Target resources in sufficient quantity to support the improvement of instruction in schools most likely to have the greatest needs (i.e., schools that serve predominately low-income communities).

6. Improve instruction by implementing strategies proven to lead students to the attainment of challenging academic standards.