Improving Minnesota education: What does the evidence say really works?

 This blog originally appeared in the Minnesota Reformer.

Minnesota  has a racial disparities problem. This includes education.

Minnesota Department of Education statistics point to Black and other students of color scoring 30 points or more lower on achievement tests compared to whites.  In 2019 the U.S. Department of Education ranked Minnesota the worst in the nation for racial disparities.  In 2022 WalletHub placed the state second worst in terms of racial equality in education.

Even beyond race, the quality of Minnesota schools is slipping as measured by national standards.

But with the DFL having trifecta control of the House, Senate and the governor’s office, and a $17.5 billion surplus, they vow to “fully fund” education.  This funding aims to pay for special education, free food for students, smaller class sizes and better pay for teachers.

While these proposals are laudable, they raise two questions:

1. What impact will all this new spending have on the quality of schools and educating students?
2.  How will this spending address the racial disparities gap?

So far little has been said in terms of how these issues will be addressed by new spending. Assume for the sake of argument Minnesota is serious and wants to improve student performance and mitigate the disparities gap. What actually works?  What does the evidence show in terms of what can be done to improve education?

There are a wealth of micro factors that impact student learning — such as good curriculum and classroom management — but what types of macro or structural factors impact student learning?  If one has a finite amount of dollars, what is the best way to spend it?  What impacts learning the best?

More money spent on education does improve outcomes. But the money has to be spent correctly. View spending as an opportunity cost or cost-benefit issue. In other words, what type of spending yields the best results in comparison to other expenditures.

First,  teachers probably deserve to be paid more. There are only modest increases in student performances that are associated with increased pay for teachers. Beyond a bachelor's degree, there is also only modest evidence that increasing teachers' credentials improves learning outcomes. Good teaching that excites or stimulates students promotes learning.

Smaller class sizes have some impact on learning, but only in some cases — perhaps grade school — but again the impact is modest compared to other reforms.

Apple has spent a fortune convincing people that spending on technology improves learning, but the evidence fails to show it. Technology, if it makes learning fun, might foster performance, but in itself it does not improve student achievement. For eight years I was editor-in-chief of a teaching and learning journal and never was there a credible article submitted to me that proved more tech toys improved learning.

Beyond ensuring that children are well-fed and not hungry, providing free meals to  students facilitates leaning. For a generation of us who grew up hearing that it is hard to learn when your stomach is empty, the evidence supports that. Additionally, gun violence, especially at schools, impacts student achievement.

But the biggest impacts on student performance have little to do with what happens in the classroom.

First, contrary to claims by many Republicans (though not only Republicans), there is little evidence that school vouchers or charter schools are cost effective ways to improve student performance. In fact, charter schools may also exacerbate segregation, which leads to greater racial learning disparities.

There is little evidence that single-parent households are associated with student achievement.  However, parental involvement, especially in terms of supporting teachers and encouraging their child to learn, positively impacts student achievement.

Increasing learning time is correlated with student learning.  The same is true for year-round schooling, which especially benefits those from low-income families.

What really impacts learning and racial disparities, however, is poverty, especially segregated schools and housing.

Minnesota has a long history of residential segregation which impacts schooling and learning. Overwhelmingly student achievement is correlated with poverty. Children who live in high or concentrated poverty neighborhoods generally do worse in school than those who do not live in them.

Students who come from segregated neighborhoods generally also do worse. Targeting funding to low-income school districts and addressing the disparities in funding between them and better funded districts overall improves student outcomes and addresses education racial disparities perhaps better than any other policy.

What do we learn from all these studies?  If Minnesota really wishes to improve educational quality, it first needs to address the way we fund and structure our schools. We should not fund them based on local property taxes but instead equalize funding across the state.

We should  also consider longer school days, year-round school, and remediating residential segregation. Providing free meals and  addressing school violence can help. We also  need to do more to facilitate family support for their children.

When I took my first teacher’s education class, the professor drew a triangle on the board and labeled the three corners family, community, and education.  The professor said that it takes all three to educate. He was correct. The factors that impact student achievement go well beyond what happens in schools.

Merely spending more money does not improve student achievement. We need to directly address poverty as well as how economic and racial segregation impact student performance.

Unfortunately, none of the proposals that I know of being offered by the DFL or the Republicans do that. In fact, many of the things we are doing, such as charter schools, only make matters worse. To really reform education in Minnesota means going after the way we fund  and organize schools and how money is spent.

Neither party, it seems, is willing to risk alienating suburban voters to do that.