Linear rankings like this are often misleading because the difference of 10 spots on the list may be very minor in absolute terms.
I don't think there's a single factor. Oregon is fairly rural, poor, and has a huge substance abuse problem, which likely factors in. It's probably the same thing that's happening in Nevada.
It's sadly true that Oregon schools are underperforming, but the idea that spending money on public land is somehow removing money from schools is an uninformed trope. Public funds are usually earmarked for specific uses; it's not just one big slush fund.
1. There's no standard grades (we don't use A through F like everyone else).
2. Teacher's cannot tell you averages in your class/grade so you don't know how well your child is doing compared to their average peer.
3. Attendance doesn't matter.
4. Grades don't matter, you can fail and still pass.
5. The push for "emotional growth centers" in schools created an unfit learning environment in many schools. Teachers are unable to stop problematic kids or remove them from the class. Kids feel unsafe when problematic kids are having a meltdown.
6. The average number of instructional hours in Oregon is well below other states because things like "teacher conferences" are counted as full school days even though there's no school.
The list goes on and on.
Yes-- the funds are earmarked for another use. However, that doesn't prevent the state from making changes and adjusting where funds are allocated. Let the people vote on it.
Paywalled but I remember hearing about that elsewhere. In a nutshell they started holding kids back if they don't pass the grade. Is that accurate?
Honestly seems smart. Letting kids pass even if they're failing does a disservice to everyone involved: the teachers who are trying to get through to them but can't, and the kids themselves who enter the adult world at a huge disadvantage.
Oregon is also extremely rural - Portland is the most populous city in the state by far, and its e.g. far smaller than all cities in the Houston/Austin/Dallas/SanAntonio metroplex. There's important cultural factors that impact its education too, like historic underfunding, poor education spending priorities, and out of touch unions (many days off, striking mid year for funds that aren't there). But I always felt the rural-ness impacting wider education trends was very under represented in discourse.
> As the state struggles being ranked 47 in education
That's wild. I would have never guessed Oregon to be that low somehow. I could have seen some poor southern states maybe or West Virginia.
Wonder what data you found? I found https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-scho... and it's 40th with a downtrend. Not sure how reliable that is though.
Linear rankings like this are often misleading because the difference of 10 spots on the list may be very minor in absolute terms.
I don't think there's a single factor. Oregon is fairly rural, poor, and has a huge substance abuse problem, which likely factors in. It's probably the same thing that's happening in Nevada.
It's sadly true that Oregon schools are underperforming, but the idea that spending money on public land is somehow removing money from schools is an uninformed trope. Public funds are usually earmarked for specific uses; it's not just one big slush fund.
That is certainly a large part of it.
1. There's no standard grades (we don't use A through F like everyone else).
2. Teacher's cannot tell you averages in your class/grade so you don't know how well your child is doing compared to their average peer.
3. Attendance doesn't matter.
4. Grades don't matter, you can fail and still pass.
5. The push for "emotional growth centers" in schools created an unfit learning environment in many schools. Teachers are unable to stop problematic kids or remove them from the class. Kids feel unsafe when problematic kids are having a meltdown.
6. The average number of instructional hours in Oregon is well below other states because things like "teacher conferences" are counted as full school days even though there's no school.
The list goes on and on.
Yes-- the funds are earmarked for another use. However, that doesn't prevent the state from making changes and adjusting where funds are allocated. Let the people vote on it.
2 replies →
>some poor southern states
Just for your curiosity - the remarkable progress in Mississippi really challenged my similarly held bias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/mississippi-schools-tr...
Paywalled but I remember hearing about that elsewhere. In a nutshell they started holding kids back if they don't pass the grade. Is that accurate?
Honestly seems smart. Letting kids pass even if they're failing does a disservice to everyone involved: the teachers who are trying to get through to them but can't, and the kids themselves who enter the adult world at a huge disadvantage.
1 reply →
Oregon is also extremely rural - Portland is the most populous city in the state by far, and its e.g. far smaller than all cities in the Houston/Austin/Dallas/SanAntonio metroplex. There's important cultural factors that impact its education too, like historic underfunding, poor education spending priorities, and out of touch unions (many days off, striking mid year for funds that aren't there). But I always felt the rural-ness impacting wider education trends was very under represented in discourse.
The number bounces around a bit, but 47/48 is widely found.
https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/533...
Wow, that’s some interesting points awarded. 1.1 points/100 for having police officers in all schools!
1 reply →