Closing the Achievement Gap: A Systemic View

  • Linda Darling-Hammond


“Closing the achievement gap” has become an American mantra over the last decade, as federal and state policies have sought to reduce unequal educational outcomes largely by setting targets and sanctions based on student test scores. And while some progress has been made since 1990, gaps in achievement between affluent and low-income students in the USA have remained large and persistent, while a number of other countries around the world have made stunning strides over the last 30 years in both raising overall achievement and reducing differentials across students and schools, including those from low-income communities and historical minority groups.


Teacher Learning Childhood Poverty Rate Student Test Score Matriculation Exam Challenging Curriculum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2011). Speaking of salaries: What It will take to get qualified, effective teachers in all communities. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.Google Scholar
  2. Akiba, G. L., & Scriber, J. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36, 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Educational Research Association. (2006). Brief amicus curiae filed in parents involved in community schools v. seattle school district no. 1. 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007).Google Scholar
  4. Baker, B., Sciarra, D., & Farrie, D. (2010). Is school funding fair? A national report card. Newark, NJ: Education Law Center.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, K., Bernstein, J., & Greenberg, M. (2008). Lessons for the United States from other advanced economies in tackling child poverty. In big ideas for children: Investing in our nation’s future (pp. 81–92). Washington, DC: First Focus.Google Scholar
  6. Betts, J. R., Rueben, K. S., Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance & Policy, 1(2), 176–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchberger, F., & Buchberger, I. (2004). Problem solving capacity of a teacher education system as a condition of success? An analysis of the “finnish case,”. In F. Buchberger & S. Berghammer (Eds.), Education policy analysis in a comparative perspective (pp. 222–237). Linz: Trauner.Google Scholar
  9. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). How and why do teacher credentials matter for student achievement? (NBER Working Paper 12828). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42).
  13. Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in Kindergarten and first grade. (NCES 2002–125). Education Statistics Quarterly, 44(1). Retrieved on 3/14/09 at
  14. Ferguson, R. F. (1991, Summer). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 465–498.Google Scholar
  15. Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(March 24).
  16. Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goe, L. (2002). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42).
  18. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huh, K. (2007). Understanding Korean education: Volume 1, school curriculum in Korea Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Kang, N., & Hong, M. (2008). Achieving excellence in teacher workforce and equity in learning opportunities in South Korea. Educational Researcher, 37(4), 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Korea Institute of Curriculum & Evaluation (no date). National Curriculum and Evaluation. Retrieved November 16th, 2006, from
  22. Levin, H. M. (2007). The Costs and benefits of an excellent education. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  23. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject matter preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. NCES (2001). Common core of data, 2000–01.Google Scholar
  25. Oakes, J. (2004). Investigating the claims in Williams v. State of California: An unconstitutional denial of education’s basic tools? Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1889–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do—Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. I).
  29. Reynolds, A., & Temple, J. (2006). Economic returns of investments in preschool education. In E. Zigler, W. S. Gilliam & S. M. Jones, S. M. (Eds.), A vision for universal preschool education (pp. 37–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does resegregation matter? The impact of social composition on academic achievement in Southern high schools. In J. C. Boger & G. Orfield (Eds.), School resegregation: Must the south turn back? (pp. 127–147). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sahlberg, P. (2009). Educational change in Finland. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 323–348). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. UNICEF. (2007). Child well-being in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti report card 7. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.Google Scholar
  34. Western, B., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2003). Education and incarceration. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  35. Zigler, E., Gilliam, W. S., & Jones, S. M. (2006). A vision for universal preschool education. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations