In fact, they're just the same as always, really. Getting better teachers and changing the curriculum won't do jack diddly. It's been done before in the 1960's, so might as well forget it unless you're willing to actually spend more money on teachers AND make children actually practice their math and science more. In other countries, failure is perceived not as a lack of aptitude, but of effort.
I'm not sure that I agree with many of the premises of this article, and I've only outlined a couple here. It seems to me that the "new" or "fuzzy" math is actually quite harmful, especially to boys. We've gone from "Add 3 +2" to "Write a number story about 3 +2." My homeschooling child is actually quite advanced in math, but I think he'd FAIL these classes. You could pay his teacher a billion dollars and he'd still fail if that sort of curriculum is used.
Though I can't say that I necessarily agree with others, especially in the homeschooling community, that we should just dig up some textbooks from 1842 and use those instead. You know the type. Everything after about 1909 is just morally bad. Colonial or prairie settings in every book and good, wholesome plotlines involving dinner buckets and spotted cows abound.