The document summarizes research showing significant achievement gaps in the United States between white and Asian students compared to black, Latino, and low-income students. It finds that minority and low-income students on average perform worse on standardized tests, graduate from high school at lower rates, and are less likely to attend and complete college. This achievement gap has negative economic consequences and persists despite spending more per student than other high-performing countries. The quality and effectiveness of teachers is identified as the most important school-based factor for student outcomes.

1. Bridging The Achievement Gap A Need for Change in American Public Education Christin Siller

12. African American, Latino & Native American high school graduates are less likely to have been enrolled in a full college prep track percent in college prep Source : Jay P. Greene, Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States, Manhattan Institute, September 2003. Table 8. 2001 high school graduates with college-prep curriculum. Full College Prep track is defined as at least: 4 years of English, 3 years of math, 2 years of natural science, 2 years of social science and 2 years of foreign language

13. African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Do Math at Same Levels As White 13 Year-Olds Source : National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP

14. African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Read at Same Levels As White 13 Year-Olds Source : National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP

24. Of Every 100 White Kindergartners: (25-to 29-Year-Olds) Source : US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, 1971-2008, in The Condition of Education 2009. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/pdf/23_2009.pdf

25. Of Every 100 African American Kindergartners: (25-to 29-Year-Olds) Source : US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, 1971-2008, in The Condition of Education 2009. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/pdf/23_2009.pdf

26. Of Every 100 Latino Kindergartners : (25-to 29-Year-Olds) Source : US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, 1971-2008, in The Condition of Education 2009. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/pdf/23_2009.pdf

27. Of Every 100 American Indian/Alaskan Native Kindergartners: (25 Years Old and Older) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, We the People: American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States . Data source: Census 2000, www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/censr-28.pdf

28. College Graduates by Age 24 Source: Tom Mortenson, Postsecondary Educational Opportunity..

44. PISA Performance U.S.A. Ranks Near Bottom, Has Fallen Since 2000 Rankings are for the 26 OECD countries participating in PISA in 2000, 2003, and 2006. Source : Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2006 Results , http://www.oecd.org/ Subject 2000 Rank (out of 26) Mathematics 17 th Science 13 th 2003 Rank (out of 26) 22 nd Tied for 17 th 2006 Rank (out of 26) 22 nd 19 th

55. U.S. Ranks Low in the Percent of Students in the Highest Achievement Level (Level 6) in Math Source : Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results , data available at http:// www.oecd.org /

56. U.S. Ranks 23 rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the Math Achievement of the Highest-Performing Students* * Students at the 95 th Percentile Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results , data available at http:// www.oecd.org /

57. U.S. Ranks 23 rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the Math Achievement of High-SES Students Source : Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results , data available at http:// www.oecd.org /

58. PISA 2006 Science Of 30 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranked 21 st U.S.A. Source : NCES, PISA 2006 Results , http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/ Higher than U.S. average Not measurably different from U.S. average Lower than U.S. average

59. Immigrants? The U.S.A. does have a larger percentage of immigrants and children of immigrants than most OECD countries Source : OECD, PISA 2006 Results , table 4.2c, http://www.oecd.org/ U.S.A.

60. But ranks 21 st out of 30 OECD countries when only taking into account native student* scores PISA 2006 Science U.S.A. * Students born in the country of assessment with at least one parent born in the same country Source : OECD, PISA 2006 Results , table 4.2c, http://www.oecd.org/

62. PISA 2003: Gaps in Performance Of U.S.15 Year-Olds Are Among the Largest of OECD Countries * Of 29 OECD countries, based on scores of students at the 5 th and 95 th percentiles. Source : Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results , data available at http:// www.oecd.org /

68. Average Number of Instructional Days in School Year By Country International Average = 193 School Days/Year SOURCE: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003

69. International Average = 1,027 Instructional Hours/Year Average Number of Hours of Instruction Per Year By Country SOURCE: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003

70. Total Time in School vs. Instructional Time (Hours) By Country 536 379 375 368 318 292 283 251 242 SOURCE: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 NOTE: Numbers in bold represent differential

71. How Students Spend Their Time Out of School on a Typical School Day (Hours Per Day, Grade 8) By Country Total Non-School Time 10.6 10.1 11.8 10.7 9.6 10.1 8.7 8.8 8.8 SOURCE: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003

72. Average Number of Hours of Extra School Instruction Per Day By Country SOURCE: Secondary Analysis of TIMSS Data 2002

79. National Center for Education Statistics

80. If we are to deliver on the promise of better use of learning time, we must have the highest quality teachers and school leaders. AMERICAN PROGRESS

82. More Classes in High-Poverty, High-Minority Schools Taught By Out-of-Field Teachers *Teachers lacking a college major or minor in the field. Data for secondary-level core academic classes. Source: Richard M. Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania. Original analysis for the Ed Trust of 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey . High poverty Low poverty High minority Low minority Note: High Poverty school-50% or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low-poverty school -15% or fewer of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High-minority school - 50% or more of the students are nonwhite. Low-minority school- 15% or fewer of the students are nonwhite.

83. Poor and Minority Students Get More Inexperienced* Teachers Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Monitoring Quality: An Indicators Report,” December 2000. *Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience. High poverty Low poverty High minority Low minority Note: High poverty refers to the top quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low poverty-bottom quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High minority-top quartile; those schools with the highest concentrations of minority students. Low minority-bottom quartile of schools with the lowest concentrations of minority students

84. Math Classes at High-Poverty and High- Minority Schools More Likely to be Taught by Out of Field* Teachers Note: High Poverty school-75% or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low-poverty school -15% or fewer of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High minority school-75% or more of the students are Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander. Low-minority school -10% or fewer of the students are non-White students. *Teachers with neither certification nor major. Data for secondary-level core academic classes (Math, Science, Social Studies, English) across USA. Source : Analysis of 2003-2004 Schools and Staffing Survey data by Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania 2007.

85. Students at High-Minority Schools More Likely to Be Taught By Novice* Teachers *Novice teachers are those with three years or fewer experience. Source : Analysis of 2003-2004 Schools and Staffing Survey data by Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania 2007. Note: High minority school-75% or more of the students are Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander. Low-minority school -10% or fewer of the students are non-White students.

86. Low-Achieving Students are More Likely to be Assigned to Ineffective Teachers than Effective Teachers Source : Sitha Babu and Robert Mendro, Teacher Accountability: HLM-Based Teacher Effectiveness Indices in the Investigation of Teacher Effects on Student Achievement in a State Assessment Program, AERA Annual Meeting, 2003.

87. 10 Percentile Point Average Difference for Students who have Top and Bottom Quartile Teachers Source: Gordon, R., Kane, T.J., and Staiger, D.O. (2006). Identifying Effective teachers Using Performance on the Job. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

95. This is not just a teacher problem, it’s a systemic one. But if we organize the public education system around the idea that teachers and schools matter to student outcomes — instead of implicitly around the idea that they don’t — we’ll see results and gap closing. Hastings