Gerald W. Von Korff · October 31, 2026
Each year, the state of Minnesota publishes the “Minnesota Report Card” showing the proficiency rates of students at each traditional public and charter school. The report shows results for all students, and for students with various demographic characteristics, such as race, status as an English language learner, special education, lower income and homelessness. The theory behind the Report Card is that transparency and public pressure will cause the school districts with lower proficiency rates to take aggressive action. The Minnesota Report Card has existed in some form since 2014: the evidence demonstrates that transparency alone does not do the job.
This memorandum compares the proficiency rates of Black students in six Minnesota school districts and one exceptional charter school, Higher Ground Academy. The purpose is not to identify so-called good school districts and bad school districts, but rather to demonstrate, by comparing students with similar demographics, that better results are possible. The solution is not transparency alone, because that is not working. The solution is a combination of adequate funding, accountability for spending that funding on effective practices, and a robust state system of supportive non-punitive accountability.
SUMMARY
To illustrate the fact that implementing tactics to realize student potential can make a significant difference, we’ve focused on Minnesota Black students, because they are the largest non-white demographic. We have extracted from this group English language learners, so that the proficiency rates are not distorted by lack of full command of the English language. The data starkly illustrates a significant difference among the selected districts. Our purpose is to argue that we can do better, and that the state should be mobilizing a system of supportive accountability so that we are realizing the potential of these students.
Among Black students who are not English learners (non-EL), 2026 reading proficiency ranges from 15.5% in Minneapolis to 53.4% at Higher Ground Academy (HGA). That is more than a threefold difference across seven districts and charters. Adjusted for HGA’s very low special education rate, HGA’s figure would be about 48%, still the highest of the seven.
| Rank | District | Black non-EL % proficient | Free/reduced-price meals |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Higher Ground Academy (charter) | 53.4%* | 69.8% |
| 2 | Anoka-Hennepin | 43.1% | 36.6% |
| 3 | Osseo | 30.5% | 43.0% |
| 4 | St. Cloud | 27.2% | 66.7% |
| 5 | Hopkins | 20.0% | 37.0% |
| 6 | St. Paul | 19.0% | 64.5% |
| 7 | Minneapolis | 15.5% | 53.6% |
* About 48% after adjusting for HGA’s low special education rate. See “Special Education Adjustment for HGA.”
Three findings stand out:
- Strong results are not only a charter phenomenon. Anoka-Hennepin, the state's largest traditional district, reaches 43.1% for Black non-EL students, second only to HGA. Yes, there may be other factors explaining these differences. This is not about blaming or finding an alibi: it’s about figuring out what needs to be done to address the needs of all students.
- The two central-city districts are at the bottom, with the widest gaps. St. Paul and Minneapolis have the highest White proficiency of the seven (69.1% and 74.2%) and the lowest Black non-EL proficiency. Their gaps between White and Black non-EL students are 50 and 59 points.
- Poverty matters but does not decide the outcome. Hopkins and Anoka-Hennepin have nearly identical poverty rates (37%) yet differ by 23 points. HGA and St. Cloud, two of the poorest, outperform four districts with less poverty.
The memo closes with three themes about how this information should be used: to learn from districts that do better and to identify districts that need more support; to recognize that publishing scores has not, by itself, produced improvement; and to build the system of supportive accountability that the Minnesota Constitution requires.
DEMOGRAPHICS AT A GLANCE
The seven differ widely in size, racial makeup and need. Figures are October 1, 2025 enrollment, all grades.
Race and ethnicity (% of enrollment)
| District | Enrollment | White | Black | Hispanic | Asian | American Indian | Two or more |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anoka-Hennepin | 38,336 | 53.5 | 17.6 | 7.4 | 11.6 | 3.2 | 6.6 |
| St. Paul | 32,750 | 22.4 | 24.1 | 14.5 | 27.6 | 3.5 | 7.9 |
| Minneapolis | 30,079 | 36.4 | 26.8 | 22.0 | 3.1 | 5.8 | 5.9 |
| Osseo | 21,385 | 36.3 | 27.8 | 10.4 | 15.8 | 2.3 | 7.5 |
| St. Cloud | 10,232 | 33.8 | 43.0 | 12.1 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 7.2 |
| Hopkins | 7,071 | 48.7 | 25.2 | 12.1 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 8.4 |
| Higher Ground Academy | 1,177 | 7.4 | 89.1 | 0.1 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Other characteristics (% of enrollment)
| District | Free/reduced-price meals | English learners | Special education | Homeless |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anoka-Hennepin | 36.6 | 10.0 | 20.3 | 1.1 |
| St. Paul | 64.5 | 30.3 | 20.6 | 1.9 |
| Minneapolis | 53.6 | 21.9 | 19.1 | 5.5 |
| Osseo | 43.0 | 12.0 | 16.5 | 1.4 |
| St. Cloud | 66.7 | 23.5 | 24.9 | 2.0 |
| Hopkins | 37.0 | 9.6 | 19.7 | 0.9 |
| Higher Ground Academy | 69.8 | 51.5 | 2.1 | 0.0 |
The English-learner share of Black test-takers also varies: about 43–44% in St. Cloud and at HGA, 21% in St. Paul, and 12–15% in the other four. This difference warns that it is a mistake to compare Black proficiency rates without disaggregation.
COMPARISON
Source: Proficiency: Minnesota Report Card, 2026 Reading MCA-IV (Reading.xlsx). FRP: MDE enrollment file, October 1, 2025. HGA is shown before the special education adjustment.
In every district, removing English learners raises the Black rate, but by different amounts: 10 points in St. Cloud and 15 at HGA, where many Black students are English learners, and 2–4 points elsewhere.
TRENDS NOW VISIBLE
With seven districts, several patterns appear that four could not show. With this few districts they are suggestive, not statistically established.
Source: Minnesota Report Card, 2026 Reading MCA-IV (Reading.xlsx); FRP from MDE enrollment file, October 1, 2025. Gap = White minus Black non-EL, in points.
- High White results do not necessarily carry Black students along. Minneapolis and St. Paul have the best White results and the worst Black non-EL results. Across the six districts, the White–Black non-EL gap rises almost in step with White proficiency (correlation 0.86). Anoka-Hennepin and St. Cloud have the smallest gaps, 16 and 22 points.
- Poverty is only loosely related to the district differences. Across the six districts, the correlation between poverty and Black non-EL proficiency is about −0.45, and the outliers run both ways. Hopkins and Anoka-Hennepin have the same 37% poverty rate and are 23 points apart. St. Cloud has more poverty than Osseo, Hopkins or Minneapolis but scores above Hopkins and Minneapolis.
- In three districts, there are very high rates of Black non-EL students scoring at the lowest level (Beginning). The share at Beginning is 63% in Minneapolis, 62% in St. Paul and 56% in Hopkins, against 29% in Anoka-Hennepin and 19% at HGA.
- Black English learners do poorly almost everywhere, with two exceptions. They are 4–7% proficient in five districts. Anoka-Hennepin reaches 12.8% and HGA 19.1%, the same two systems that lead for Black non-EL students.
- Minneapolis has the highest homelessness rate (5.5%) and the lowest Black result. Homelessness, like poverty, may play a role.
ANOKA-HENNEPIN (ISD 11)
Black non-EL students are 43.1% proficient, the best result among traditional districts and only 16 points behind White students in the district. Just 28.6% score at the Beginning level.
| Student group | Tested | % proficient | % Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| All students | 18,926 | 50.6% | 24.5% |
| White | 10,249 | 59.2% | 18.5% |
| Black, all | 3,216 | 38.7% | 33.9% |
| Black, not EL | 2,741 | 43.1% | 28.6% |
| Black EL (derived) | 475 | 12.8% | 64.6% |
The state's largest district: 38,336 students, 53.5% White and 17.6% Black, with 36.6% free/reduced-price meals, 10.0% English learners, 20.3% special education and 1.1% homeless. Its Black students make up a smaller share of enrollment than in most of the others, and its poverty is among the lowest. Even so, Hopkins has the same poverty rate and gets far lower results. Again, the goal is not to blame, but to recognize that some districts need more support (and more accountability measures) than others.
OSSEO (ISD 279)
Black non-EL students are 30.5% proficient, third of the seven, and 34 points behind White students (64.4%).
| Student group | Tested | % proficient | % Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| All students | 10,253 | 44.3% | 31.3% |
| White | 3,844 | 64.4% | 14.2% |
| Black, all | 2,738 | 27.6% | 47.1% |
| Black, not EL | 2,403 | 30.5% | 43.7% |
| Black EL (derived) | 335 | 6.9% | 71.3% |
An inner-ring suburban district of 21,385 students: 36.3% White, 27.8% Black and 15.8% Asian, with 43.0% free/reduced-price meals, 12.0% English learners, 16.5% special education and 1.4% homeless. Only 12% of its Black test-takers are English learners, the lowest share of the seven.
ST. CLOUD (ISD 742)
Black non-EL students are 27.2% proficient, fourth of the seven, and 22 points behind White students (48.9%), the second-smallest gap.
| Student group | Tested | % proficient | % Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| All students | 4,315 | 30.5% | 47.3% |
| White | 1,447 | 48.9% | 27.9% |
| Black, all | 1,778 | 17.5% | 60.8% |
| Black, not EL | 1,021 | 27.2% | 47.1% |
| Black EL (derived) | 757 | 4.4% | 79.3% |
It has 10,232 students: 43.0% Black and 33.8% White, with 66.7% free/reduced-price meals, 23.5% English learners, 24.9% special education and 2.0% homeless. St. Cloud has the highest special education rate of the seven and the second-highest poverty rate. About 43% of its Black test-takers are English learners, so its all-Black figure (17.5%) understates how its Black non-EL students are doing. Its gap is small partly because its White students score lower than White students in the other districts.
HOPKINS (ISD 270)
Black non-EL students are 20.0% proficient, fifth of the seven, despite one of the lowest poverty rates. White students are 64.2% proficient, a gap of 44 points.
| Student group | Tested | % proficient | % Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| All students | 3,222 | 45.8% | 33.2% |
| White | 1,641 | 64.2% | 16.7% |
| Black, all | 717 | 18.0% | 59.0% |
| Black, not EL | 610 | 20.0% | 55.9% |
| Black EL (derived) | 107 | 6.5% | 76.6% |
Hopkins has 7,071 students: 48.7% White and 25.2% Black, with 37.0% free/reduced-price meals, 9.6% English learners, 19.7% special education and 0.9% homeless. Hopkins is the clearest case against a poverty-only explanation: it has the same poverty rate as Anoka-Hennepin and less than half its Black non-EL proficiency.
ST. PAUL (ISD 625)
Black non-EL students are 19.0% proficient, sixth of the seven. White students are 69.1% proficient, a gap of 50 points.
| Student group | Tested | % proficient | % Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| All students | 14,165 | 33.5% | 45.8% |
| White | 3,251 | 69.1% | 15.3% |
| Black, all | 3,234 | 16.5% | 65.0% |
| Black, not EL | 2,543 | 19.0% | 61.5% |
| Black EL (derived) | 691 | 7.1% | 78.0% |
St. Paul has 32,750 students: 27.6% Asian, 24.1% Black, 22.4% White and 14.5% Hispanic, with 64.5% free/reduced-price meals, 30.3% English learners (the highest of the six districts), 20.6% special education and 1.9% homeless. About 21% of its Black test-takers are English learners.
MINNEAPOLIS (SSD 1)
Black non-EL students are 15.5% proficient, the lowest of the seven. White students are 74.2% proficient, the highest White result, which makes Minneapolis's 59-point gap the widest.
| Student group | Tested | % proficient | % Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| All students | 13,129 | 41.3% | 42.7% |
| White | 5,196 | 74.2% | 11.6% |
| Black, all | 3,148 | 13.9% | 66.2% |
| Black, not EL | 2,665 | 15.5% | 63.4% |
| Black EL (derived) | 483 | 4.8% | 81.8% |
Minneapolis has 30,079 students: 36.4% White, 26.8% Black, 22.0% Hispanic and 5.8% American Indian, with 53.6% free/reduced-price meals, 21.9% English learners, 19.1% special education and 5.5% homeless, the highest homelessness rate of the seven. Only 15% of its Black test-takers are English learners, so English learners do not explain its results. Its district-wide poverty rate is mid-range, though that average hides large differences between its schools.
HIGHER GROUND ACADEMY (CHARTER 4027)
Black non-EL students are 53.4% proficient, the best of the seven. Adjusted for HGA’s low special education rate, the figure would be about 48%, still the best (see below). Only 18.5% score at the Beginning level.
| Student group | Tested | % proficient | % Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| All students | 618 | 36.6% | 35.6% |
| Black, all | 581 | 38.2% | 32.5% |
| Black, not EL | 324 | 53.4% | 18.5% |
| Black EL (derived) | 257 | 19.1% | 50.2% |
| White | 29 | 6.9% | 86.2% |
HGA has 1,177 students: 89.1% Black, 7.4% White and 3.4% Asian, with 69.8% free/reduced-price meals (the highest of the seven), 51.5% English learners, 2.1% special education and no homeless students reported. About 44% of its Black test-takers are English learners, and even they are 19.1% proficient. Two cautions:
- Special education. HGA’s 2.1% rate is far below the districts’ 16–25%. Students with disabilities usually score lower. Adjusting for this lowers HGA’s Black non-EL rate by an estimated 5 points, to about 48%.
- White students. Only 29 were tested. They may be East African or Middle Eastern students whom federal categories classify as White, but the number is too small to interpret.
SPECIAL EDUCATION ADJUSTMENT FOR HGA
HGA’s special education rate (2.1%) is far below the other six (16.5–24.9%). Because students in special education usually score lower, part of HGA’s Black non-EL result may reflect having fewer of them. Statewide figures for Black students allow a rough estimate of how much.
| Black students statewide | Tested | Proficient | % proficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Black students | 50,791 | 14,613 | 28.8% |
| Not in special education | 42,946 | 13,982 | 32.6% |
| In special education (derived) | 7,845 | 631 | 8.0% |
| Not EL (for reference) | 39,119 | 13,296 | 34.0% |
Source: Minnesota Report Card, 2026 Reading MCA-IV, statewide (Reading.xlsx). Special education row derived by subtracting the not-special-education counts from the all-Black counts.
Statewide, 15.4% of Black MCA test-takers are in special education, and they score about 25 points below other Black students. Proficiency for Black students who are neither English learners nor in special education is not published. The estimate therefore assumes HGA’s Black non-EL test-takers have its school-wide special education rate (2.1%) and asks what HGA’s result would be if 15.4% of them were in special education instead. The answer depends on how HGA’s special education students would score:
- At the statewide Black special education rate (8.0%): HGA would be 47.2%, a reduction of 6.2 points. This assumes HGA adds nothing for these students.
- In the same proportion to other students as statewide (about one-quarter of HGA’s level, or 13%): HGA would be 48.0%, a reduction of 5.4 points. This is the central estimate.
- Twenty-five points below HGA’s other students, the statewide gap (about 29%): HGA would be 50.1%, a reduction of 3.3 points.
Using a 12% or 20% special education share instead of 15.4% moves the reduction to between about 2 and 8 points. This memo uses about 5 points, which puts HGA’s Black non-EL rate at about 48%. HGA’s lead over Anoka-Hennepin narrows from 10 points to about 5.
Even adjusted, HGA’s result is high, especially for a school where 69.8% of students qualify for free or reduced-price meals, the highest rate of the seven. About 48% is 14 points above Black non-EL students statewide (34.0%), 21 and 29 points above St. Cloud and St. Paul, whose poverty rates are nearly as high, and about equal to the statewide rate for all students (48.2%).
Several cautions apply:
- Alternate test. Students with the most significant disabilities take the MTAS and are not counted in MCA results. That is why the 15.4% test-taker share is below district enrollment rates, and why the estimate uses the test-taker share.
- Identification. If HGA identifies fewer students rather than enrolling fewer students with disabilities, its unidentified students are already in its 53.4%, and the true adjustment is smaller.
- Other districts. The other six are not adjusted. Their special education rates are close enough to typical that the change would be small; St. Cloud, at 24.9%, would gain a point or two.
CONCLUSIONS
- Language acquisition does not completely explain differences. Removing English learners raises Black proficiency everywhere, but the ranking barely changes and the spread between districts stays at 38 points (33 with HGA adjusted).
- Neither poverty nor charter status completely explains differences. The two best results come from a high-poverty charter (HGA) and a low-poverty traditional district (Anoka-Hennepin). Hopkins, with Anoka-Hennepin's poverty rate, is near the bottom.
- What districts do appears to matter a great deal. Black non-EL students with broadly similar circumstances reach 43–48% proficiency in two systems (HGA adjusted for special education) and 15–20% in three others. That supports a multi-lever reform agenda focused on instruction, curriculum, time and expectations, not desegregation or funding alone.
- The central cities exhibit relatively high White proficiency rates. Minneapolis and St. Paul serve White students very well and Black non-EL students worst of all. That points to how those districts serve Black students, not to an overall lack of capacity.
- HGA remains a strong example, with caveats. Adjusting for its low special education rate lowers its Black non-EL result by about 5 points, to about 48%. That is still the best of the seven and high for a school where 70% of students are low-income. Charter self-selection may account for part of the remaining advantage. Anoka-Hennepin’s result shows that strong outcomes for Black students are achievable in a large traditional district.
WHAT THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE USED FOR
Beyond the findings above, these comparisons raise three broader themes.
- The statistics answer two questions: First, they identify districts that seem to be doing better with students who come to school with educational disadvantages, such as Anoka-Hennepin and HGA here. We can then ask what those districts are doing that works. Even those districts may not be reaching their full potential, but they point to the conclusion that there is potential to do better. Second, they identify districts whose students need additional support and additional resources, such as Minneapolis, St. Paul and Hopkins. Both uses look forward. Neither treats the numbers as a final grade.
- Transparency has not produced adequate improvement. The theory behind publishing proficiency scores is that transparency is an engine of improvement: once parents, voters and school boards see the results, districts will change. That theory is not validated. Minnesota has published proficiency results by district and student group for years, and differences like those in this memo have remained persistently the same.
- These results should trigger systemic, supportive accountability. The better results in some districts suggest that most Minnesota districts can do better with students who come to school with educational disadvantages. There must therefore be a system that provides districts the resources to improve dramatically what they are doing. Identifying a district’s results as inadequate should begin a process of support, not end with a published score.
This is a constitutional obligation, not only a policy choice. Article XIII, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution makes it “the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools” and to “make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to an adequate education, Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1993), and has held that claims that the State is failing to provide one can be decided by the courts, Cruz-Guzman v. State, 916 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2018). The constitution does not provide merely for a system to expose what we are not doing. It demands that the legislature and the governor take action to provide students with an adequate education that meets state standards.
Would more districts be worth collecting? Yes. These seven cover about 31% of Black test-takers statewide. Collecting this data is time-consuming because the Minnesota report card does not make collecting comparative data easy. Other groups deserve a similar analysis.
DATA AND SOURCES
- Proficiency: Minnesota Report Card, 2026 Reading MCA-IV, all grades, downloaded by Gerald Von Korff (Reading.xlsx). Percent proficient = Meets + Advanced.
- Black EL (derived): computed by subtracting the Black non-EL counts from the all-Black counts. These numbers are derived from the Report Card.
- Demographics: MDE enrollment public file 2026 (October 1, 2025 counts), district level, all grades. These are the same figures the Report Card shows on its demographics pages.
- Correlations: calculated across the six traditional districts; HGA is excluded because it has too few White students. With six data points they show direction, not statistical significance.
- Difference from MDE's assessment file: Report Card counts run slightly below MDE's Data Center file. For example, Minneapolis Black students are 3,148 tested and 13.9% proficient on the Report Card, against 3,213 and 15.7% in the Data Center file. The Report Card probably shows the accountability population by default. The same setting should be used for every district collected.
- Special education adjustment: statewide 2026 Reading MCA-IV results for all Black students, Black students not in special education and Black non-EL students (Reading.xlsx, State sheet); special education figures derived by subtraction. HGA’s 2.1% special education rate is from the enrollment file (all students). The estimate is approximate; see that section for assumptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
comments welcome