The Case for Comprehensive, Systemic Reform in American Education
Justin Jewell, M.Ed.
ABSTRACT
American public education is in measurable and accelerating decline. Standardized test
scores have fallen to levels not seen in decades, chronic absenteeism has nearly doubled since 2020, and public school enrollment has contracted by more than 1.2 million students since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet the response from policymakers has been episodic and fragmented, targeting technology, curriculum adoptions, or tutoring programs in isolation while leaving the structural architecture of schooling largely untouched. This article argues that no single intervention will reverse these trends. Meaningful recovery and lasting improvement require simultaneous, coordinated reform across six interdependent dimensions: teacher preparation and ongoing professional development; classroom behavior and school culture;
family and community engagement; curriculum implementation and instructional fidelity; school stability and organizational health; and the diversification of learning models within districts. Drawing on national data, peer-reviewed research, and policy analysis, this article presents a unified framework for understanding why piecemeal fixes have consistently failed and what comprehensive systemic reform must look like if American schools are to reclaim their mission. Keywords: educational reform, teacher quality, school culture, curriculum implementation, parent engagement, learning models, systemic change
I. INTRODUCTION: A SYSTEM RESISTANT TO CHANGE
American students are falling further behind, and the failure is structural, not incidental.
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), peak student
achievement in the United States occurred in 2013. Since that year, combined math and reading scores have declined by nearly three-tenths of a standard deviation, the equivalent of more than a full year of learning lost — and only about half of that erosion occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (Hanushek, 2025). The crisis, in other words, predates the pandemic, and recovery efforts that treat it otherwise are, by definition, insufficient.
The data are difficult to dismiss. In spring 2023, only 56 percent of American
fourth-graders performed at grade level in math, compared to 69 percent in 2019 (Kane, Center
for Education Policy Research, Harvard University). The 2023 Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) described its findings as “sharp, steep declines”, a
characterization delivered by Peggy Carr, Commissioner of the National Center for Education
Statistics, noting that “progress in prior years has been erased” (Carr, as cited in Schwartz, 2024).
Meanwhile, chronic absenteeism, defined as missing 10 percent or more of the school year,
nearly doubled from approximately 14.8 percent of students in 2019 to 28.3 percent in 2022, and
has recovered only slowly, with 94.7 percent of U.S. districts still recording absenteeism rates
above their own 2019 benchmarks in 2024 (Malkus, AEI, 2025).
Despite these facts, the policy response has been characterized by a familiar pattern:
identify a single cause, launch a targeted intervention, and declare momentum. Technology has
been both a scapegoat and a savior, depending on the political moment. Reading programs, math
curricula, tutoring initiatives, and extended school days have each taken a turn at center stage.
Federal recovery spending of $190 billion produced, by most measurable accounts, continued
decline rather than rebound (Hanushek, 2025). The system, it appears, is fundamentally resistant
to the reforms being applied to it.
This article argues that resistance is precisely the problem. When one part of a complex
system is addressed while leaving interconnected parts unchanged, the system reasserts itself.
Teacher quality cannot be improved without improving preparation programs and professional
culture. Curriculum cannot be effectively implemented without teacher mastery and behavioral
conditions that support learning. School culture cannot be stabilized without leadership
continuity, family engagement, and diverse program offerings that retain enrollment. Each
dimension of reform is necessary; none is independently sufficient. The pages that follow build
this argument systematically, culminating in a framework for comprehensive, coordinated
change.
II. THERE IS NO QUICK FIX
It is a characteristic of complex social systems that simple solutions are both appealing
and ineffective. American education is no exception. Over the past three decades, the United
States has invested heavily in a succession of high-profile reform initiatives, standards-based
accountability under No Child Left Behind, performance-incentive programs under Race to the
Top, the adoption and partial retreat from Common Core State Standards, and most recently the
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding packages totaling nearly
$190 billion. The NAEP data that followed each initiative tell a consistent story: performance
improved modestly, stalled, or declined (Hanushek, 2025).
The Institute for Faith and Culture (2024) noted that since 1960, per-pupil K-12 spending
in the United States has increased by 350 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, with no
corresponding sustained improvement in student outcomes. The University of Washington
ranked the United States 38th in mathematics and 24th in science among 71 nations studied (as
cited in Institute for Faith and Culture, 2024). According to OECD data, the average American
student now performs nearly a full academic year behind the international average, a deficit that
has been accumulating since at least 2012 (OECD, as cited in Institute for Faith and Culture,
2024).
This is not an argument against investment. It is an argument about how that investment
is structured. Money directed at a single point of failure in a multi-failure system does not
produce system-level results. A school that adopts a high-quality curriculum without
simultaneously equipping teachers to deliver it, maintaining conditions under which students can
learn, and engaging families as partners will not realize the curriculum’s potential. The research
base on this point is clear: program effects are consistently mediated by implementation quality,
and implementation quality depends on the health of the surrounding system (Fixsen et al., 2005;
Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Equally counterproductive is the impulse, common across the political spectrum, to
remove rather than reform. Calls to ban smartphones, eliminate social-emotional learning
programs, defund diversity initiatives, or restrict particular curricula address symptoms rather
than causes — and in many cases, remove tools that, properly implemented, represent legitimate
support for student learning. The question is never whether a given resource or approach exists in
a school, but whether it is purposefully integrated into a coherent instructional environment. That
coherence does not emerge from subtraction. It must be built.
III. TEACHER PREPARATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The proposition that teacher quality is the single most consequential in-school variable
affecting student achievement has been supported by decades of research (Barber & Mourshed,
2007; Hanushek, 1992; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). Research in the Frontiers in Education
journal confirmed that a teacher’s delivery of instruction, encompassing communication
strategies, questioning techniques, and instructional responsiveness, was positively and
significantly associated with student achievement in English language arts, while effective
management of classroom procedures was the primary predictor of mathematics gains (Engida,
Iyasu, & Fentie, 2024). The implication is direct: the quality of every instructional interaction is
a function of teacher preparation.
The evidence that current preparation systems are meeting this standard is troubling. The
National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) has found that most states, 29 states and the
District of Columbia, rely on weak elementary teacher reading licensure assessments that do not
reliably measure candidates’ knowledge of scientifically based reading instruction before
classroom entry. Nearly 100,000 elementary teachers enter classrooms each year having passed
tests that do not adequately verify their readiness to teach foundational literacy (NCTQ, 2024).
Additionally, NCTQ has documented that only 3 percent of teacher preparation programs require
aspiring elementary educators to complete coursework in most of the social studies and science
content areas their students will encounter (NCTQ, 2024).
Compounding the inadequacy of pre-service preparation is the inconsistency of in-service
professional development. Research published in the American Educational Research Journal
found meaningful differences among teacher preparation programs not only in teachers’ initial
effectiveness, but also in their rates of growth during the early career, and crucially, that the
features of preparation associated with initial effectiveness are not the same features that promote
growth over time (Bardelli, Ronfeldt, & Papay, 2023). This finding has significant implications:
a profession that invests heavily in initial credentialing but neglects ongoing learning will
produce teachers who plateau, rather than develop.
Teacher professional development must therefore be reconceived as a continuous,
evidence-aligned, job-embedded process rather than a calendar of compliance trainings. This
means structured instructional coaching, collaborative lesson study, peer observation with
feedback, and meaningful evaluation systems that function as professional development tools
rather than accountability exercises. It also means ensuring that preparation programs align with
classroom realities, including behavioral complexity, diverse learning needs, and the curricular
materials teachers will actually use. None of this is new knowledge. What remains elusive is the
institutional will to implement it at scale.
IV. CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
No instructional program, however well-designed, delivers its intended outcomes in a
classroom environment that lacks behavioral order and emotional safety. This statement may
seem self-evident, yet the systemic management of student behavior remains one of the least
consistently addressed dimensions of school reform. The Center on Reinventing Public
Education (CRPE) noted in its 2024 State of the American Student report that schools face
“worsening challenges” including escalating behavioral difficulties, declining teacher morale,
and mental health support shortages, conditions that interact with and amplify one another
(CRPE, 2024).
The behavioral climate of schools was already deteriorating before 2020. COVID-19 accelerated
and deepened those trends. Research cited in The 74 Million documented “escalating behavioral
challenges” as one of the most significant consequences of the pandemic on student life (The 74
Million, 2023). Teachers across grade levels have reported increases in students’ difficulty with
sustained attention, peer conflict, and emotional regulation, patterns consistent with research on
the developmental effects of prolonged social disruption and trauma exposure during formative
years.
Addressing behavior systemically requires more than reactive discipline policies. It
requires the adoption of proactive, evidence-based frameworks such as Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS), trauma-sensitive teaching practices, and tiered
social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula embedded across the school day. It also requires
investment in the mental health infrastructure that schools currently lack: school counselors,
psychologists, and behavioral specialists in sufficient numbers to actually reach students in need.
The American School Counselor Association recommends a ratio of one counselor per 250
students; the national average is approximately one per 408 (ASCA, 2022).
Behavioral challenges do not exist in isolation from the instructional environment.
Disengagement, acting out, and avoidance behaviors are frequently symptoms of academic
frustration — of students who cannot access grade-level content because foundational skills were
never established, or who are seated in environments that do not differentiate instruction to meet
their needs. Behavior, learning, and instructional design are not three separate domains requiring
three separate interventions. They constitute a single ecology that must be addressed as such.
V. PARENT AND FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
The research on parental involvement and student achievement is among the most
consistent in the education literature. A 2026 secondary data analysis published in the
International Journal of Education and Pedagogy found that parental involvement —
encompassing home-based academic support, school-based engagement, and cognitive
stimulation through parent-child discourse, was positively and significantly associated with
student achievement in literacy, mathematics, and science, as well as with school attendance,
academic motivation, and secondary school completion (International Journal of Education and
Pedagogy, 2026). Earlier research confirmed that family involvement increased both test scores
and graduation rates, and elevated the likelihood that students would pursue higher education
(Henderson & Berla, 1994, as cited in OSPI, 2022).
Longitudinal evidence reinforces the importance of early and sustained engagement.
Research drawing on data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
found that elementary students with more involved parents demonstrated significantly higher
social functioning and fewer behavioral problems at school, effects that mediated long-term
academic outcomes (Nokali, Bachman, & Votruba-Drzal, 2010, as cited in PMC, 2016). A
separate path analysis accounting for 61 percent of variance in third-grade achievement found
significant associations between early parental involvement in school activities and student
academic outcomes extending through later elementary grades (PMC, 2016).
Yet the relationship between schools and families in the United States is frequently
adversarial, transactional, or absent altogether. Schools often communicate with parents
reactively — in response to behavioral incidents, grade failures, or special education proceedings
— rather than proactively building the partnerships that the research supports. This is especially
true in high-poverty communities, where systemic barriers to involvement including inflexible
work schedules, language differences, distrust of institutions, and geographic inaccessibility
compound one another (CRPE, 2024).
Meaningful family engagement is not achieved by scheduling a back-to-school night or
sending home a newsletter. It requires schools to develop relational infrastructure: multilingual
communication systems, flexible conference schedules, home visit programs, family liaison staff,
and genuine inclusion of parents as decision-making partners in their children’s education.
Schools that treat families as resources rather than recipients of information consistently
demonstrate stronger attendance, higher academic motivation, and better behavioral outcomes,
not because those families are inherently different, but because the school has built the
conditions for engagement to occur.
VI. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION, TEACHER UNDERSTANDING, AND
INSTRUCTIONAL FIDELITY
The adoption of high-quality instructional materials has become a priority across many
states and districts, driven by growing evidence that curriculum quality directly affects student
outcomes. Yet adoption and implementation are not synonymous. The NCTQ documented a
significant and recurring gap between what a curriculum is designed to do and what teachers
actually deliver, noting that policies mandating high-quality materials frequently “run into a
proverbial brick wall when teachers think the materials are too tough for their students” (NCTQ,
2024). When teachers lack confidence in a curriculum’s accessibility, they simplify, skip, or
substitute, often in ways that undermine the very coherence and scaffolding that made the
curriculum effective.
This gap between adoption and implementation reflects a deeper structural problem: the
field has treated curriculum selection as a reform strategy while treating teacher mastery of that
curriculum as a secondary concern. Research on instructional coaching published in Educational
Researcher found robust evidence that coaching supports in teacher education significantly
improve the quality of instructional practice (Cohen, Wong, Krishnamachari, & Erickson, 2024).
Yet most districts do not provide sustained, curriculum-aligned coaching at the scale or intensity
that the evidence supports. Professional development sessions tied to new curriculum adoptions
are typically brief, generic, and disconnected from the actual instructional sequences teachers
will implement.
Teacher methodology is the third dimension of this challenge. Beyond understanding
what a curriculum contains, teachers must have a deep and flexible repertoire of instructional
strategies, direct instruction, inquiry-based learning, collaborative structures, formative
assessment practices, and differentiated approaches that allow them to respond to the full range
of learners in their classrooms. The research on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and
differentiated instruction consistently shows that proactive instructional design, which anticipates
and addresses variability rather than retrofitting accommodations after difficulties emerge,
produces better outcomes for all students, including those with identified disabilities (CAST,
2018).
Curriculum fidelity is not synonymous with rigidity. The goal is not rote delivery of
scripted lessons but intelligent, informed, and responsive implementation of materials designed
around coherent learning progressions. Achieving this requires not only professional
development, but time, structured collaborative planning time for teachers to study the
curriculum together, identify common student misconceptions, analyze formative data, and refine
their practice in community with peers. This kind of professional learning culture does not
develop in isolation. It must be deliberately cultivated.
VII. SCHOOL CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL STABILITY
The research on school improvement is unambiguous on one point: sustained gains
require sustained leadership and a stable organizational culture. When principals turn over
frequently, when teacher staffing is chronically unstable, and when reform initiatives change
with each administrative transition, schools cannot build the institutional memory, relational
trust, or consistent expectations that improvement requires. Yet principal turnover in
high-poverty, urban schools averages three to four years, barely long enough to diagnose a
school’s challenges, let alone execute a coherent response (Burkhauser et al., 2012).
School culture, the shared beliefs, norms, and behavioral expectations that govern daily life in a
school, functions as either an accelerant or an anchor for every other reform effort. A school
culture that is intellectually ambitious, relational, and grounded in high expectations for both
students and adults will amplify the effects of high-quality curriculum and instruction. A culture
characterized by low expectations, distrust, isolation among staff, and inconsistent discipline will
diminish even the strongest programmatic interventions. Decades of organizational research
support this conclusion (Bryk et al., 2010).
The CRPE’s 2024 report on the state of the American student identified teacher morale as
a worsening challenge alongside mental health shortages and declining enrollment, three causally
interrelated conditions. Teachers who do not feel supported, respected, or effective leave the
profession. Their departure destabilizes classrooms and teams, increasing workload for
remaining staff, elevating student exposure to inexperienced or long-term substitute teachers, and
perpetuating a cycle of institutional dysfunction. A 2025 analysis from Brown University
researchers described how COVID-era burnout and political conflict over curricula have
continued to undermine teacher retention and morale years after in-person instruction resumed
(as cited in PublicSchoolReview.com, 2025).
Building and sustaining a healthy school culture is not a program that can be
implemented in a semester. It is an ongoing commitment to the relational infrastructure of
schooling: mentoring new teachers, recognizing and retaining effective veterans, creating
meaningful avenues for teacher voice in school decisions, establishing clear and consistent
behavioral norms, and maintaining leader continuity long enough to see reforms through from
design to outcome. School districts that treat culture as soft or peripheral are routinely
confounded by the failure of programs that, on paper, should have worked.
VIII. DIVERSIFYING LEARNING MODELS: MEETING FAMILIES WHERE
THEY ARE
The enrollment data confronting American public education in 2024 carry a message that
districts can no longer afford to ignore. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, total public K-12 enrollment stood at 49.5 million students in fall 2023, a 2.5 percent
decline from 2019 levels, with 18 states experiencing drops exceeding four percent (NCES,
2024). In Massachusetts, a state whose enrollment trends reflect national patterns, public school
enrollment in fall 2024 was 4.2 percent below fall 2019 levels while private school enrollment
exceeded pre-pandemic trends by 15.6 percent and homeschooling remained 56 percent above its
2019 baseline (Dee & Schueler, Education Next, 2025).
These numbers are not simply a demographic artifact. Research from Michigan found
that the highest-income 20 percent of districts have lost more public school students than the
remaining 80 percent combined, while lower-income districts have largely recovered their
enrollment (ScienceDirect, 2024). This pattern suggests that families with options, financial,
geographic, and informational, are exercising those options, often in response to dissatisfaction
with the educational experience that traditional public schools offer. Charter school enrollment
had been rising steadily before the pandemic leveled it; homeschooling more than doubled in fall
2020 and has not meaningfully retreated (NCES, 2024; Dee & Schueler, 2025).
The lesson is straightforward: families are telling districts what they want, and traditional
schooling structures are not delivering it for a growing number of students. Districts that respond
by defending the status quo will continue to lose enrollment, and with it, the per-pupil funding
that sustains programs and staffing. Districts that respond by expanding their model portfolios —
incorporating project-based learning schools, dual-language programs, arts integration
academies, STEM-focused pathways, blended and hybrid learning options, and community
school models create retention and re-engagement opportunities that a single-model system
cannot.
This is not a call to abandon traditional schooling. It is a call to recognize that no single
instructional model effectively serves every learner, and that districts that offer genuine diversity
of learning environments within their boundaries give families a reason to remain. The Stanford
CREDO study found that charter students received the equivalent of 16 additional days of
learning in literacy and six in math compared to their district public school peers, evidence not
that charters are inherently superior, but that intentional model design, coherent culture, and
mission-driven instruction can produce meaningful results (CREDO, as cited in The 74 Million,
2023). Districts should be learning from that evidence and incorporating its principles, not
ceding students to external systems that do.
IX. A FRAMEWORK FOR COMPREHENSIVE REFORM
The preceding sections establish the interdependence of six dimensions of educational
quality: teacher preparation and professional development; classroom behavior and school
climate; family and community engagement; curriculum implementation and instructional
fidelity; school culture and organizational stability; and the diversification of learning models.
No single dimension can be optimized in isolation. The system either improves as a whole or it
does not meaningfully improve at all. What follows is a condensed framework for how districts
and states might approach reform in an integrated rather than episodic manner.
Step 1: Diagnose the Whole System
Before any reform can be designed, district and school leaders must conduct an honest,
data-rich assessment of conditions across all six dimensions. This means analyzing not just
student achievement data, but staffing stability, teacher preparation pathways, professional
development quality, behavioral incident rates, family engagement levels, curriculum
implementation fidelity, and enrollment trends by model type. Diagnosis tools such as the School
Conditions and Climate Survey, the PBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory, and structured walkthroughs
with feedback protocols can provide the data needed to prioritize and sequence reform.
Step 2: Stabilize the Foundation
No reform initiative produces results in an unstable environment. The first priority must
be creating the organizational conditions under which improvement is possible: retaining
effective leaders and teachers, establishing predictable routines and behavioral expectations, and
building relational trust among staff, students, and families. Districts experiencing high
leadership turnover should prioritize principal pipelines and succession planning. Schools with
chronic absenteeism and behavioral instability need immediate investment in attendance
outreach, mental health services, and tiered behavioral support before curriculum-focused
reforms can take hold.
Step 3: Align Teacher Preparation and Professional Learning
States must strengthen the requirements governing both pre-service preparation and
in-service learning. Teacher licensure assessments should meaningfully measure candidates’
knowledge of the content and pedagogical practices they will use in classrooms. Teacher
preparation programs should require substantive, curriculum-aligned clinical experiences
supervised by expert cooperating teachers. In-service professional development should be
restructured as job-embedded, coaching-intensive, and directly connected to the instructional
materials and student data teachers encounter daily.
Step 4: Implement Curriculum with Fidelity and Flexibility
Districts should select high-quality, evidence-aligned instructional materials and then
invest proportionally in supporting their implementation, not just at adoption, but over multiple
years. This means curriculum-specific coaching, structured collaborative planning time, ongoing
formative data analysis, and a professional culture that treats instructional reflection as a norm
rather than an exception. Fidelity to the learning progression of a curriculum must coexist with
responsiveness to student needs; teachers need both the deep content knowledge and the
pedagogical flexibility to make that combination work.
Step 5: Engage Families as Partners, Not Audiences
Districts must move beyond transactional family engagement toward genuine partnership.
This requires multilingual communication, flexible access to teachers and administrators,
community outreach through trusted organizations, family liaison staff embedded in schools, and
the structural inclusion of parent voice in school decision-making. Schools in high-poverty
communities should explore community school models that co-locate health, social service, and
family support resources on-site, removing access barriers that prevent meaningful engagement.
Step 6: Diversify the District’s Learning Ecosystem
Districts must take seriously the enrollment data that indicate families are voting with
their feet. Rather than defending a single model of schooling, districts should invest in
developing a range of intentional, mission-driven learning environments within their boundaries,
including project-based schools, dual-language programs, arts and STEM academies, and hybrid
or extended-day models. These offerings must be equitably distributed and actively promoted in
communities of color and lower-income neighborhoods, where families have historically had less
access to diverse educational options.
X. CONCLUSION
American education does not have a single problem. It has a system that has accumulated
decades of structural misalignment between what schools need to do and what they are designed
and resourced to do. Every targeted intervention that does not address that misalignment will
underperform. Every administrator who responds to declining scores with a new program, every
legislature that responds to enrollment loss with a funding cut, and every school board that
responds to teacher shortages with a recruiting campaign while leaving working conditions
unchanged will discover what the data have consistently shown: the system resists partial
solutions.
The students sitting in classrooms across this country, including the growing number who
are chronically absent from them, the millions who are years behind grade level in foundational
skills, and the hundreds of thousands who have exited public schools altogether, cannot wait for
another decade of episodic reform. They need comprehensive change, and they need it with
urgency. The knowledge of what that change requires is not in dispute. The research base on
teacher quality, family engagement, school culture, curriculum implementation, and instructional
diversity is deep, consistent, and actionable.
What remains to be assembled is the political and institutional will to pursue reform at
the scale and integration it requires. That assembly begins with an honest accounting of where
schools stand today, not where we wish they stood, and a commitment to addressing every
dimension of their performance, simultaneously and in concert. There are no shortcuts, and there
are no substitutes. There is only the work, and the conviction that every child in this country
deserves to be in a school system that is genuinely designed for their success.
REFERENCES
American School Counselor Association. (2022). Student-to-school-counselor ratio 2021–2022. ASCA.
https://www.schoolcounselor.org
Bardelli, E., Ronfeldt, M., & Papay, J. P. (2023). Teacher preparation programs and graduates’ growth in
instructional effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 60(2).
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221137798
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. McKinsey
& Company.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for
improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Burkhauser, S., Gates, S. M., Hamilton, L. S., & Ikemoto, G. S. (2012). First-year principals in urban school
districts: How actions and working conditions relate to outcomes. RAND Corporation.
CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE). (2024). The state of the American student 2024.
https://crpe.org/the-state-of-the-american-student-2024/
Cohen, J., Wong, V. C., Krishnamachari, A., & Erickson, S. (2024). Experimental evidence on the robustness of
coaching supports in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 53(1), 19–35.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231198827
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine
our future. Teachers College Press.
Dee, T. S., & Schueler, B. (2025). School enrollment shifts five years after the pandemic. Education Next.
https://www.educationnext.org/school-enrollment-shifts-five-years-after-pandemic-public-education-shrinki
ng-middle-schools/
Engida, M. A., Iyasu, A. S., & Fentie, Y. M. (2024). Impact of teaching quality on student achievement: Student
evidence. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1367317. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1367317
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A
synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute.
Hanushek, E. A. (2025, September). The pandemic didn’t break American education; it’s been in crisis since 2013.
The 74 Million.
https://www.the74million.org/article/the-pandemic-didnt-break-american-education-its-been-in-crisis-since
-2013/
Institute for Faith and Culture. (2024). The collapse of American education (Pt. 1) — A sobering look at the
numbers. https://institutefc.org/the-collapse-of-american-education-pt-1/
International Journal of Education and Pedagogy. (2026). Parental involvement and student academic achievement
in K-12 education. IJEP, 2(2). https://www.eduresearchjournal.com/index.php/ijep/article/view/637
Kane, T. J. (2024, November). The scary truth about how far behind American kids have fallen. Center for
Education Policy Research, Harvard University.
https://cepr.harvard.edu/news/scary-truth-about-how-far-behind-american-kids-have-fallen
Lumina Foundation. (2026, February). America is slipping in higher education. The slide starts long before college.
https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/america-is-slipping-in-higher-education-the-slide-starts
-long-before-college/
Malkus, N. (2025). Lingering absence in public schools: Tracking post-pandemic chronic absenteeism into 2024.
American Enterprise Institute.
https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/lingering-absence-in-public-schools-tracking-post-pandemic-c
hronic-absenteeism-into-2024/
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2024, December). Press release: NCES data show public school
enrollment held steady overall from fall 2022 to fall 2023. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/12_5_2024.asp
National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). (2024). Research that moved minds: Top Teacher Quality Bulletin
articles of 2024.
https://www.nctq.org/research-insights/research-that-moved-minds-top-teacher-quality-bulletin-articles-of-
2024/
PublicSchoolReview.com. (2025). COVID-19’s enduring effects on U.S. public schools (2025).
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/covid-19s-enduring-effects-on-us-public-schools-2025
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica,
73(2), 417–458.
Schwartz, S. (2024, December). ‘Sharp, steep declines’: U.S. students are falling behind in math and science.
Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/sharp-steep-declines-u-s-students-are-falling-behind-in-math-and-scien
ce/2024/12
The 74 Million. (2023). 14 charts that changed the way we looked at America’s schools in 2023.
https://www.the74million.org/article/14-charts-that-changed-the-way-we-looked-at-americas-schools-in-20
23/
U.S. News & World Report. (2023, May). ‘A national concern’: Student scores decline on U.S. history and civics.
https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2023-05-03/a-national-concern-student-scores-decli
ne-on-u-s-history-and-civics