Great Oaks Academy Charter School

Great Oaks Academy Charter School is a two-school Minnesota charter district serving about 531 students in grades K–8, with an elementary campus and a middle school. Great Oaks Academy - Grammar enrolls 430 students in K–5, and GOA School of Logic enrolls 101 students in 5–8, making Grammar roughly 4.3 times larger. The district stands out statewide, ranking 23rd of 458 Minnesota districts — the 95th percentile — with 5 stars. Grade 5 appears at both campuses, but in the test data grade 5 scores are reported under Grammar.

The two schools have different strengths. Grammar is the math engine: 73.8% of students were proficient in math in 2025–26, well above the district's 65.2% and the state's 44.9%, and 3rd grade math reached 83.8% against 57.9% statewide. Logic is the reading engine: 63.1% proficient, above the district's 61.6% and the state's 48.6%, with 6th grade reading at 71.9% versus 53.4% statewide. Grammar's reading (60.7%) and Logic's math (52.2%) are above state but slightly below the district average. Both are rising in rank: Grammar climbed 126 places over two years, from 255th of 881 to 129th of 869, moving from the 71st to the 85th percentile, while Logic sits at 55th of 546 middle schools, the 90th percentile, with 5 stars.

Science is the weakest subject in absolute terms at both schools, though each beats its state grade-level benchmark: Grammar's 5th grade science is 33% versus 25.9% statewide, and Logic's 8th grade science is 21.1% versus 16.7%. Logic's science also jumped from 12% to 21.1%. Grammar improved in all three subjects year over year (+10.21 points in math, +1.21 in reading, +1.75 in science) while the state improved in none. Logic's math was flat, reading slipped 4.25 points but stayed above district and state, and science rose sharply. With only about 25 students per grade, Logic's swings should be read with caution; Grammar's steadier gains are more reliable. Free/reduced lunch rates (17.67% at Grammar, 20.79% at Logic) and student/teacher ratios (16.4 and 16.0) are similar and do not explain the differing subject strengths.