Does money make a difference in how students perform in Minnesota?

You bet. Especially the money the kids' parents make.

A Star Tribune analysis of test scores and school spending found that:

- The money Minnesota school districts spend to teach children has less effect on how they score on major state tests than whether those kids are poor, don't speak English or are receiving special-education services.

- While school spending affects how well children do in the lower grades, that influence wanes as students get older.

- When comparing similar districts to one another - and accounting for the factors that most affect student achievement - some districts performed significantly better than they were expected to. Some did significantly worse.

The question of what difference money makes is gaining more attention in this time of tightening resources.

In Minnesota and around the country, researchers, educators and legislators are grappling with how much money schools really need - and what results they should show for it.

Larry Hedges, a University of Chicago professor of education, psychology and sociology, said school spending makes a difference, even if other factors are more important. The key to the growing national research effort on school spending and student achievement, he said, is finding the biggest bang for the buck.

"We're in a situation where we just barely have enough research data to suspect that there's an effect," Hedges said.

The Star Tribune's findings bolster his view: Some financial factors do help predict test success, but more detail is needed to know exactly where spending more money would improve performance.

.

Going deeper

A simple glimpse at the data shows little effect.

Looking at just 2000-01 school spending reveals that some of the state's biggest spenders have some of the lowest test scores. And children in some of the more frugal districts score among the highest. But the opposite also is true.

Consider: In 2000-01, the median amount spent per pupil in Minnesota was $7,050 - 172 districts spent more, 172 spent less. Of the districts that finished in the top 25 percent of basic-skills-test passing rates that year, 42 spent more than the median and 43 spent less. Of the bottom 25 percent passing rates, 56 districts spent more - and 29 spent less.

So the newspaper analysis went deeper, looking at a combination of school district spending, test scores and student profiles for 2000-01 to find which factors played a greater role in test performance.

The answer? Poverty.

No other factor is as dominant in predicting whether a Minnesota district's test scores will be high or low as the percentage of students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch. Poverty was the strongest predictor of success on the third- and fifth-grade Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments, and it was the heaviest hitter for the results of the eighth-grade basic-skills tests.

But other factors - some clearly related to spending - creep in.

Take a look at the third grade. The Star Tribune looked at the percentage of students who score in top levels on the MCA reading and math tests to see what influences those higher scores. Districts that had more kids scoring highly on the tests also had, in order of impact:

- Lower poverty.

- Fewer pupils who have limited English skills.

- Smaller class sizes.

- Less spent on administration.

- Less of their budget spent on transportation.

- More spent on maintenance.

On the fifth-grade tests, the highest scoring districts had:

- Lower poverty.

- Higher per-pupil expenditures than other districts.

- A lower percentage of minority students.

- Lower percentages of special-education students taking the tests.

- A lower proportion of students new to the district.

- Smaller percentages of students taking the bus.

On the eighth-grade tests, the biggest factors were:

- Lower poverty.

- Fewer special-education students taking the tests.

- Fewer minority students.

- Few children new to the district.

To many school officials and educators, the fact that poverty, mobility and limited English skills have such an effect on achievement is no big surprise. Educators have insisted for years that higher poverty and student mobility naturally correlates to lower test scores.

Clearly, spending plays a role. But what makes it hard to link achievement to spending is how Minnesota and many other states fund schools. Usually, the poorer - and poorer-performing - schools get more money and high-performing schools get less. Eric Hanushek, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of California's Stanford University, sees little compelling evidence that spending increases performance.

But, he said: "You have to be a little bit careful when you just look at spending in districts. Districts that perform poorly might be pumping up spending in response to poor performance."

Mark Davison, director of the Office of Educational Accountability at the University of Minnesota, said the way Minnesota distributes education money "tends to suppress the relationship between spending and achievement."

.

Predicting results

Amid a growing national accountability effort to judge schools not only by test scores but also on how kids improve over time, research is moving beyond the traditional scorecards that show wealthier districts outpacing poorer ones. The job now is discovering how well schools teach the kids they have.

The Star Tribune's analysis tried to find out by comparing similar districts: Minneapolis, St. Paul and the three largest suburban districts; 24 large suburban districts and small cities; and small suburban and mostly rural districts.

Each district was given a predicted passing rate, based on the factors found to have the most influence on achievement. In all, about two dozen factors were used to analyze districts, ranging from poverty to class size to spending on building maintenance.

The biggest districts turned in passing rates that were at or near their predicted performance. This group was too small for a full analysis of how they compared with one another, so they were analyzed using statewide results.

The two largest groups were analyzed separately to see which factors influenced their performance.

For both groups, poverty carried the most weight on most of the tests. But other factors, such as the percentage of special-education students taking the tests, the district's enrollment and busing affected predicted scores. Spending was a factor mostly in the smaller, rural districts and not as much in the suburbs.

.

A scorecard

Using this analysis, the Star Tribune found some districts doing much better in 2000-01 than predicted.

Wayzata was expected to perform well, given its low poverty and small population of special-education students. But its kids outstripped the predictions on the third- and fifth-grade tests. The folks who teach in Wayzata think it has something to do with annual assessments that produce immediate results, a lot of parental involvement and a stable of experienced teachers taking extra time to learn the strengths and weaknesses of their younger students.

"Ninety-nine percent of what we know about kids comes day in and day out in the classroom - and it's instantaneous," said John Greupner, Wayzata's coordinator of assessment and evaluation.

Take Carolyn Morris' first-grade class at Plymouth Creek Elementary, for example. Every August, she will spend 45 minutes with each of her 21 or so incoming students for a one-on-one evaluation. Do they know their letter sounds? Do they recognize numbers?

Youngsters who struggle are quickly steered into programs to help them catch up, said Plymouth Creek Principal Judith Hill. Last year, of the 28 children placed into a special reading program, Hill said, 18 will be out of the program next year. They are now reading a full grade level ahead.

Wayzata quickly channels information - from teachers, from parents, from tests - into the way lessons are taught, said Wayzata Superintendent Paul Bailfuss. And the district constantly is trying to find ways to use the information it collects. "We're looking at data-driven decisions," he said.

Brandon, a 350-student district just west of Alexandria, also uses information on its students - along with small class sizes and experienced teachers - to outperform its predicted scores.

For the past three years, Brandon has pushed nearly all of the kids who used to finish in the lower levels of the third and fifth-grade tests into the top levels. How? Superintendent Mark Westby said experienced teachers work with small groups and pass their knowledge along to the next year's teacher. Only one of the district's 25 teachers has been in Brandon less than 10 years.

"You know the kids and which kids need help," Westby said. "With only one teacher per grade level, there are no communication breakdowns."

Coupled with a strong early childhood program, detailed annual assessments in grades 2 through 8 and a familiar curriculum, such gains are possible, he said.

Such detailed information "makes a difference if you know what to do with it," Westby said.

.

Beyond the data

For some districts, the analysis may have identified challenges beyond the data. The Bird Island-Olivia-Lake Lillian School District had a passing rate significantly lower than predicted on the fifth-grade tests. District officials believe they know why.

Fifth grade is the first year of middle school in the district, when kids come from their hometown elementary to the school in Bird Island, a transition from the familiar. Also, officials said, the fifth-grade tests include writing.

"I think we've gotten away from the whole process of writing, and kids have gotten used to just handing it in," said Fay Kuznia, who coordinates graduation standards for the district.

The work now, said Jim McDowell, principal of the K-8 complex in Bird Island, is beginning an earlier emphasis on writing.

"You've got to get the stuff embedded into the curriculum. And that takes time," he said.

Elk River, too, can look at its lower-than-predicted fifth-grade results and blame its writing scores.

While writing hasn't become as ingrained in the early grades, reading and math scores have steadily improved over the past few years with new teaching strategies, said Debra Bowers, Elk River director of educational services.

Still, she said, the Star Tribune's analysis doesn't provide a complete picture. For one thing, counting only those kids who score at the top levels on the third and fifth-grade tests is a high standard, she said - about the 75th percentile. Elk River's focus has been on raising the scores of students who finished in the lower levels.

And the Star Tribune analyzed only one year of data. Looking at several years' worth would show whether Elk River was consistently falling below projections, she said. Or it might alter the projections. For example, the number of students not fluent in English in Elk River increased from about 25 in 2000-01 to more than 150 in 2001-02 - factors that Bowers said might lower the district's predicted scores in the future.

Robbinsdale educators, after poring over the Star Tribune's analysis, conceded that it may have identified challenges.

Robbinsdale had passing rates significantly lower than predicted on the fifth- and eighth-grade tests when compared to other schools in the suburban grouping. And other researchers - doing the same kind of analysis as the Star Tribune but with several years' worth of data - also found that Robbinsdale and Elk River were performing below predictions and that Wayzata and Brandon were overachieving.

Robbinsdale Superintendent Stan Mack said he agrees with the Star Tribune's findings. For the past two years, he said, he has pushed his district to use data to make better decisions about spending, staffing and curriculum.

Robbinsdale is working to install districtwide standards regarding the amount of time kids spend learning different subjects, he said. In addition, the district is doing an in-depth study of middle-school education. And it's training teachers to use more research-proven instruction methods. A $1 million federal grant will help bolster Robbinsdale's reading instruction, Mack said. The district is working to identify students' strengths and weaknesses earlier. And new reading and math series now are in place.

What the Star Tribune's analysis may have illuminated, Mack said, is a district that had been too laissez faire in its approach to curriculum, staff development and assessment.

"You can write a whole lot of prescriptions, but if they don't fit the cure, they're not going to work," he said. "We're in a full-court press in dealing with lots of these issues. And the data you've supplied to us is actually reinforcing that this is important and we must make changes."

. James Walsh is at jwalsh@startribune.com.