Recently, Mathematica published a report that upended years of research and conventional wisdom about teaching. The report's main findings – that low-income students and high-income students are equally likely to be taught by great, mediocre and low-performing teachers, respectively – came as a surprise to many of us in the education policy world who have cited research showing that low-income students' lack of access to qualified teachers is one likely contributor to our nation's achievement gaps.

Following the release of the study, social media traffic on my feed was some mix of surprise and "I told you so," with many using the study to confirm their own preexisting positions. Undoubtedly the study's methodology and the many additional research questions it raises will be picked over thoroughly. But the full report contains considerable detail that addresses a lot of the critiques I've seen thus far.

So what to do with this new information? Though some will say, perhaps rightly, that this study is proof that teachers have been unfairly blamed for the achievement gap, it seems that there is a broader issue at stake. Even in a system that may provide low-income and high-income students with teachers of relatively similar quality, we are still seeing vastly unequal outcomes. That needs to change.

In other words, even if there is more equality in our nation's classrooms than previously thought, America's education system is still not equitable.

Low-income students' educational attainment, lifetime earnings, health and so much more depend on their ability to get a good education. It would be unacceptable to just throw up our hands and say, "Well teachers are working equally hard in both places, the achievement gap is all caused by poverty, so there is nothing left to be done."

Many will use this research as evidence that we need to address some of the factors outside of school that affect student learning, such as by increasing wraparound services and expanding access to full-service community schools. These strategies are certainly part of the solution, and they are valuable because they improve low-income students' health and quality of life. However, research indicates that they work best when combined with high quality schools and instruction.

Giving low-income students more access to those teachers at the top of the distribution, then, is another important strategy for improving their outcomes. Embedded deep within Mathematica's report is some good news: Most of the districts participating in the study (which skewed toward large urban districts) were already employing at least some strategies for giving low-income students greater access to high-performing teachers.

While it is unclear whether or not these strategies account for the study's overall findings, it is heartening to know that by the end of the study period, many districts were implementing a variety of policies designed to encourage excellent teachers to teach in high-needs schools. For example, 13 of the 26 study districts were giving bonuses to teachers for teaching in high-needs schools, 12 were giving high-need schools early teacher hiring timelines or preference and 15 were providing new teachers with comprehensive induction programs.

An interesting follow-up to the Mathematica report, then, would be to determine whether these policies had an effect on the equitable distribution of teachers among high- and low-income students. If we were to find that these policies had an impact on how teacher quality is distributed across districts, we should expand upon these policies.