We have known for many years that we need to improve the schooling process of our youth, particularly of the most disadvantaged. Cross-national studies of student achievement have shown, among other things, that the inequities built into the system account for much of the variation in fourth-and eighth-grade mathematics and science performance between the higher-achieving nations and the United States.

Indeed, our top-tier schools are performing at the level of our international competitors, while others, as the most recent New York State achievement results have shown, cannot even make the grade. Some of the latter are located in the Buffalo School District.

As a society, we keep stumbling in our efforts to close the achievement gap for two main reasons: 1) because our policy makers, especially at the national and state levels, keep searching for the silver bullet, the magic solution that can quickly fix it; and 2) because of a limited understanding of what improvement means and how it should be achieved. In a sense, public schooling in America has lost its purpose.

During the last decades, the policy environment has embraced accountability by test scores and choice as the most important ingredients of that magic solution. Improvement became synonymous with doing well on standardized tests of basic knowledge and skills.

While certainly important, test scores and choice cannot be the sole answer to the problems of our low-achieving schools, much less the force driving policy making. However, both the No Child Left Behind Act and the Race to the Top federal program rely on states’ standardized testing as the primary measure of school and teacher quality, and make funding decisions based on their results.

Moreover, in an effort to enhance accountability in an environment of fiscal constraint, the national administration ruled, without conclusive data, that states must increase the charter school quotas (or get rid of them altogether) if they want to share a piece of the Race to the Top pie. Similarly, it ruled that for a district to qualify for those funds, schools with poor test scores must engage in one of the following: remove the principal and half the staff, remove the principal and transform the school, close down or be replaced by a charter school.

Do you wonder why the Buffalo School District retired more than 300 senior teachers and administrators? Well, you have the answer. Something is wrong with this picture. Is this the right step toward school improvement?

Ironically, it seems these efforts are jeopardizing, perhaps unintentionally, the survival of public education. Testing should not serve as the only measure used to close schools or dismiss teachers, but instead to identify the struggling ones that need help, to recognize areas of weakness and strengths and to provide additional support if needed. But even this would not be sufficient to close the achievement gap or improve our most challenging schools.

The different administrative levels and the community must work together to lift the quality level of low-performing schools. Districts are not, and should not be, complete independent units. In the end, they exercise the powers delegated to them by the state and serve a larger national purpose.

Our public officials are accountable to the public to compensate for the inequities in the system — after all, many of them occupy public offices because the public, including those individuals whose kids attend low-achievement schools, voted for them. The public did not vote to continue a system that punishes schools, principals, teachers and students if they do badly on a test. Paradoxically, the same administration that claimed “change” as the motto of its presidential campaign is not only not changing the educational experience of less-advantaged Americans, but embracing, even more wholeheartedly, what its predecessor put in place.

Yes, change is needed in education. A change that recognizes that schools are not in isolation; that they are immersed in communities, some of which are also struggling. Beyond the collaboration between different administrative units, educating our most vulnerable citizens requires a social compromise.

Thus, public education should recover its democratic purpose, which demands, among other things, the involvement of the many social institutions to respond to the ills (unemployment and poverty, to name a couple) that are the root of low-quality schooling in urban and rural areas. Such organizations include universities, schools, families, businesses, non-profits, religious entities and the media. It involves a few charter schools if they can prove they offer unique and excellent programs that provide education for all, and not just for a few at the expense of leaving the most challenging kids in traditional public schools.

Our educational challenges are many; the answer is not one-dimensional. In addition to what I mentioned, we also need to make sure every child is exposed to common core curricular standards of quality and not a watered-down version of the basics. Every student deserves a well-educated, caring and committed teacher in front of the classroom who will not leave the field after three stressful years of service.

Schools need experienced principals; they require stability and not continuous change in structure and management to demonstrate improvement. Schools and communities must create a culture of respect, inclusiveness and collaboration to promote the conditions that guarantee genuine learning. At present, that is not happening in many public schools.

The accountability system in place is diminishing the democratizing power of public education. The purpose should aim at establishing a system of education that advances academic excellence and social justice in every school in America. If we strengthen them, we strengthen our democracy. Are we ready for the challenge?

M. Fernanda Astiz, Ph.D., is an associate professor at Canisius College.