curriculum, with Advanced Placement (AP) program participation at an all-time high (College Board, 2014). Perhaps even more important, there is evidence that students with low socioeconomic status have greater access to such opportunities. Schools are encouraging more students to participate in AP classes, making access to rigorous courses possible for all students who want to learn. From 2003 to 2013, the number of students who have taken AP courses nearly doubled, and the number of low-income students taking AP classes more than quadrupled from 58,489 to 275,864 (College Board, 2014). According to the College Board (2014), more students earned qualifying scores of 3, 4, or 5 than took exams in 2003.
In addition, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reports increases in student achievement in reading and mathematics from 1990 (Nation’s Report Card, 2015). Since 1990, NAEP has administered assessments to fourth- and eighth-grade students. In 2015, students had an average score in mathematics of 240 points at fourth grade and 282 points at eighth grade on scales of 0–500 points. Scores for both grades were higher than those from the earliest mathematics assessments in 1990 by 27 points at fourth grade and 20 points at eighth grade (Nation’s Report Card, 2015). Reading achievement levels have risen slowly since 1992 with increases in fourth grade of 6 points from 217 to 223 and at eighth grade an increase of 5 points from 260 to 265 (Nation’s Report Card, 2015). In addition, on the first NAEP Technology and Engineering Test, eighth-grade girls scored higher on average than eighth-grade boys (Zubrzycki, 2016), indicating the closing of the achievement gap for females.
The encouraging news continues with the improving results of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). This is an assessment administered to approximately four thousand students in sixty-three countries. The results indicate that U.S. students have improved their scores from 1995 to 2015 in fourth grade from 518 to 539 and in eighth grade from 492 to 518 (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IEA], 2015a). In addition, in 2015, on the fourth-grade science assessment, U.S. students scored an all-time high of 546, and in eighth grade a new high of 230 (IEA, 2015b).
So, with all of this good news, how is it also the worst of times? Unfortunately, although the trends on the NAEP show growth for U.S. students from the start of the assessment through 2015, in reality, fourth-grade mathematics reached a high in 2013 of 242 and dropped 2 points in 2015; eighth-grade mathematics scores reached a high in 2013 of 285 and dropped 3 points in 2015. Similarly, eighth-grade reading scores reached a high in 2013 of 268 and dropped 3 points in 2015. Only fourth-grade reading achieved a high in 2015, increasing by 1 point over the results in 2013 (Nation’s Report Card, 2015). Additionally, on the TIMSS assessments, fourth-grade mathematic dropped from a high of 541 in 2011 to 539 in 2015, while eighth-grade mathematics and fourth- and eighth-grade science showed growth in the same time period (IEA, 2015a, 2015b). The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), given to fifteen-year-olds, shows that U.S. students have declined in both mathematics and reading scores: from 483 in 2003 to 470 in 2015 for mathematics and 504 in 2003 to 497 in 2015 for reading (NCES, 2016c). Furthermore, although more students are graduating, according to state listings noting priority schools most in need of improvement, too many schools still do not meet needed growth targets or the equivalent of adequate yearly progress (AYP) defined by No Child Left Behind. Additionally, half of U.S. high school dropouts come from about 15 percent of high schools. Unfortunately, there are few examples to date of such low-performing schools producing substantial and sustained achievement gains (Kutash, Nico, Gorin, Rahmatullah, & Tallant, 2010).
The gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students has grown about 40 percent since the 1960s, and the imbalance between rich and poor students in college completion, the single most important predictor of success in the workforce, has grown 50 percent since the late 1980s (Greenstone, Looney, Patashnik, & Yu, 2013). Additionally, while the dropout rates of high school students are decreasing, there is a significantly larger percentage of students who drop out and are from families in the lowest quartile of family income—11.6 percent in 2014 compared to an overall rate of 6.5 percent (NCES, 2015). Education is the most powerful tool for helping students of poverty (Greenstone et al., 2013). Yet the numbers of students from low-income families who enter college after high school is unchanged in comparison to those from high-income families:
The immediate college enrollment rate for high school completers increased from 60 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2014. The rate in 2014 for those from high-income families (81 percent) was nearly 29 percentage points higher than the rate for those from low-income families (52 percent). The 2014 gap between those from high- and low-income families did not measurably differ from the corresponding gap in 1990. (NCES, 2016b)
To complicate matters further, the neediest schools experience the most difficulty in attracting and retaining leaders and teachers. A study of Texas administrative data concludes that principal-retention rates are related to both student achievement and student poverty levels, with higher turnover among low-achieving, disadvantaged schools (Fuller & Young, 2009). In addition, these schools lose more than half of their teaching staff every five years (Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009; Hemphill & Nauer, 2009, as cited in Le Floch, Garcia, & Barbour, 2016). The constant change of principals and teachers eliminates the consistent focused efforts necessary to improve schools.
Policymakers and education leaders have sought to improve America’s low-performing schools. The U.S. government has made substantial investments in the form of School Improvement Grants (SIG) and Race to the Top (RTT) grants. However, the current systems and reform efforts are not working. Even considering the increase in graduation rates, approximately 20 percent of students who enter high school will drop out. In the 48 percent of U.S. schools that need improvement, the number of high school dropouts is much greater (Kutash et al., 2010). Schools can predict which students are at risk of dropping out by as early as first grade and identify these students with accuracy by third grade (American Psychological Association, 2012; Sparks, 2013).
Unfortunately, there are serious implications for students who do not succeed in school. In the United States, dropouts are three times more likely to be unemployed and therefore more likely to live in poverty with an estimated annual salary of $20,241 (Breslow, 2012). They will earn thirty-three cents for every dollar a college graduate earns. This is the highest discrepancy in the world (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Also of concern is the fact that dropouts are more prone to ill health and are four times more likely to be uninsured or underinsured. The most astonishing statistic is that the life expectancy for dropouts is an average of ten and a half fewer years for women and thirteen fewer years for men than those with a high school diploma (Tavernise, 2012).
These alarming facts describe the urgency that failing schools face every day. The question is not should our schools improve, but how? The greatest challenge to school improvement is the overwhelming perception that no matter what teachers and administrators do, there seems to be no way out of failing results. Each year brings more state and federal mandates and sanctions to respond to with little hope of making a real difference for students. Failing schools want and need improvement—now!
So why haven’t all the initiatives and reforms produced appreciable results that schools have sustained over time? Because “successful and sustainable improvement can never be done to or even for teachers. It can only be achieved by and with them” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p. 45). The missing element in all of these efforts is teachers and administrators. They are the only ones who can and do improve schools. Real school improvement occurs when a school harnesses the power within and focuses its efforts on higher levels of learning for all students. No amount of outside pressure will make schools improve; they only do so when the adults who work directly with the students decide it is their job to ensure all students learn at high levels. Helping students learn requires a collaborative and collective effort. Teachers and administrators must be ready to implement any necessary changes so that students can reach proficiency and beyond. Everyone focuses on evidence of student learning, every day, in every classroom—not just before administering a test.
