Minnesota students are in a kind of holding pattern when it comes to performance on state achievement tests. For the past several years, the news has been similar: Tiny increases or flat scores have been the norm.

Continuing that pattern won't get larger numbers of Minnesota kids where they should be academically. Standing pat is nearly the same as falling behind in a global economy in which schools must produce better-educated, more technically savvy students to compete.

This year's test results once again demonstrate the urgent need to move lower-performing students up to par more quickly. There are many examples of successful instruction, both locally and nationally, that Minnesota districts and schools should follow as they seek programs that work. It's disappointing that the status quo too often wins out in Minnesota schools when there are numerous models for innovative change.

The 2010 test results reveal why: On the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs), 66.1 percent of public-school students were proficient in math, compared with 64 percent last year, according to results reported by the state Department of Education. In reading, 72.5 percent were proficient, up from 72.1 percent in 2009.

Embedded in those figures, the frustrating disparity between whites and students of color continues. For example, about 46 percent of Hispanic students were proficient in math, compared with 71 percent of whites. The black/white student gap is about 30 to 40 percentage points statewide and as high as 50 in some districts.

Though the aggregate test result news was less than stellar, the results revealed that some programs know how to make double-digit progress. According to the Star Tribune news analysis, of the 20 Minnesota schools that reported the largest one-year reading and math gains, 12 were charter schools. And on the top 20 "Beating the Odds" list, 13 were charters. Those are schools where the proficiency levels are higher even though at least 85 percent of the students come from low-income families.

By contrast, a handful of the lower-performing schools were charters, but those lists also included core city, suburban and rural programs. Clearly the troubles of low achievement are not limited to inner-city, high-poverty students.

More-challenged schools and districts should take lessons from their successful counterparts. In the coming months, additional resources are on the way to help some of them do it. More than $30 million in federal aid is coming to Minnesota specifically to turn around struggling schools and replicate neighborhood/school initiatives such as the Harlem Children's Zone in New York City.

As Education Commissioner Alice Seagren points out, the state is poised to do at least three years of intensive intervention with some of the state's most-challenged schools. Outcomes at those schools should help the state and local districts learn how to most effectively target more funding.

A stronger sense of urgency and heightened political will are needed to address underperforming schools. When programs cannot bring the majority of their students to grade level or beyond, swift action should be taken to improve them, merge them with more successful programs or shut them down.