Oregon’s Education Crisis: Spending More, Getting Less, and Failing Students
Oregon spends more on K-12 education than ever before, yet the state continues to rank near the bottom nationally in key education outcomes. That disconnect is the focus of this episode of Oregon Discussion, where Mike McLane and Shelly Boshart-Davis sit down with Christine Drazan to examine what has gone wrong in Oregon schools and what it would take to turn the system around.
The discussion is direct but not hopeless. Drazan begins by emphasizing that Oregon’s education problems are real, measurable, and serious—but also solvable. She argues that Oregon has not always performed this poorly and that the state can improve if leaders are willing to return attention to basic academic outcomes, classroom authority, parental involvement, and real accountability.
Oregon’s Spending Problem: More Money, Poorer Outcomes
One of the central tensions in Oregon education policy is that the state is spending historically high amounts per student while producing weak academic results.
In the episode, the hosts discuss Oregon spending roughly $18,000 per student while ranking near the bottom nationally in reading and math outcomes. The point is not that education should be underfunded. The concern is whether Oregon taxpayers, parents, and students are receiving results that match the level of public investment.
That question sits at the heart of Oregon’s broader government accountability problem. If spending continues to rise while outcomes continue to fall, the issue is not simply money. It is management, priorities, standards, and whether the system is organized around students or around bureaucracy.
Reading and Math: The Basic Skills Crisis
The episode highlights several troubling academic outcomes. According to the discussion, roughly one-third of Oregon students are proficient in core subjects, and only about 34 percent of Oregon fourth graders read at grade level. The hosts also discuss eighth-grade math and science proficiency concerns.
That matters because early literacy is one of the strongest indicators of future academic success. If a child cannot read proficiently by the end of third grade, every subject becomes harder after that. Math, science, civics, history, and job training all depend on the ability to read and understand increasingly complex material.
Mike McLane raises this concern directly in the episode, pointing to the importance of third-grade reading as a major predictor of whether students are likely to become independent, productive adults. The point is simple: a school system that fails to teach children to read is not merely producing bad test scores. It is limiting the future of those children.
Chronic Absenteeism and the Loss of Classroom Time
Another major issue discussed is chronic absenteeism. The episode notes that roughly one in three Oregon students is chronically absent, placing Oregon among the worst states in the country on that measure.
Christine Drazan argues that students cannot learn if they are not in class. She connects the absenteeism problem to the culture created during COVID-era school closures, when Oregon kept students out of classrooms longer than many other states. In her view, the state sent a damaging message that classroom attendance was optional or less important than it actually is.
The episode also compares Oregon’s instructional time with Washington state. According to the conversation, a student just across the Columbia River in Vancouver, Washington, can receive the equivalent of an extra year of school over the course of K-12 education compared to an Oregon student.
That comparison puts Oregon’s instructional-time debate in plain terms. Even before measuring quality, curriculum, discipline, or funding, Oregon students may simply be receiving less time in school.
The Science of Reading and the Return to Phonics
The episode also discusses how Oregon teaches reading. Christine Drazan references the broader national debate over reading instruction, including the shift away from phonics and toward other methods such as cueing. She argues that Oregon needs to fully embrace evidence-based reading instruction, often called the “science of reading.”
The discussion points to examples from other states, including Mississippi and Alabama, where leaders identified weak outcomes and made focused reforms in reading or math instruction. The lesson from those states, according to the episode, is that improvement is possible when leaders acknowledge the problem and make academic recovery a true priority.
This is one of the most important themes of the conversation: Oregon does not need to invent an entirely new theory of education. It needs to return to proven fundamentals.
Graduation Standards and the Meaning of a Diploma
The episode then turns to graduation requirements. Shelly Boshart-Davis references Senate Bill 744, passed in 2021, which suspended Oregon’s essential skills graduation requirements. Christine Drazan argues that removing those proficiency checkpoints weakened the meaning of an Oregon diploma.
The concern is not just symbolic. If students graduate without demonstrating basic proficiency, they may enter community college, the workforce, or trade programs unprepared. Employers expect workers to show up, complete tasks, communicate, solve problems, and meet standards. If schools remove meaningful standards, students may face a harsh reality after graduation.
Drazan describes this as unfair to students. In her view, lowering standards does not help struggling students. It hides the fact that the system failed to serve them earlier.
Discipline, Classroom Disruption, and Teacher Authority
The episode also addresses classroom disruption and teacher safety. Drazan discusses legislation she supported that would have restored more authority to teachers to remove disruptive students from classrooms and create a clearer process for returning them.
The conversation includes the concept of “room clears,” where an entire classroom of students may be removed because one student is behaving in a dangerous or highly disruptive way. The hosts argue that this approach damages learning for everyone in the room, including students who are ready and trying to learn.
The discussion does not dismiss trauma-informed approaches. Drazan acknowledges that some students face serious challenges and need support. But she argues that Oregon has taken some well-intentioned ideas too far, creating classrooms where teachers lack authority and students lose instructional time.
Screen Time, Phones, and Early Childhood Learning
Screen time is another major issue. The episode discusses the use of iPads and screens in early grades, including concerns that young children need tactile learning, handwriting, play, blocks, scissors, and other physical learning tools rather than constant screen interaction.
The hosts also discuss cell phones in schools. Drazan says she supported removing cell phones from the classroom bell-to-bell, and she also supports reducing screen exposure for younger students. Her suggested approach includes no screens in K-3 classrooms except in narrow cases such as direct, supervised literacy intervention.
The broader concern is that Oregon schools may have adopted technology for convenience and efficiency without fully accounting for child development, attention, mental health, and learning.
Parents, Homework, and the Role of Families
The episode also raises the issue of parental involvement. Drazan discusses how some schools moved away from homework because not every student had the same support at home. She argues that while that concern may be well-intentioned, eliminating homework can also prevent engaged parents from knowing what their children are learning or where they are struggling.
The larger point is that schools should treat families as partners, not obstacles. Parents need visibility into their children’s progress, and students need practice to build proficiency. A system that removes grades, homework, and clear feedback may make it harder for parents to intervene early.
The Governor as Superintendent of Public Instruction
One of the most important policy points in the episode is that Oregon’s governor also holds direct authority over public instruction after the state eliminated the separately elected superintendent of public instruction role. The hosts discuss this as a major reason the governor’s race matters for education.
Christine Drazan argues that if elected governor, she would replace the Oregon State Board of Education and refocus the Department of Education on reading, writing, math, science, civics, graduation standards, classroom instruction, and student outcomes. She also says schools need relief from excessive reporting and administrative requirements so money and time can return to the classroom.
This part of the episode reframes education as an executive leadership issue. If the governor is responsible for Oregon’s education system, then voters should judge candidates by whether schools are improving.
PERS, Administrative Burden, and Money Leaving the Classroom
The hosts also discuss how school funding is affected by legacy costs, including PERS obligations. McLane notes that a significant portion of education dollars is not going directly to current classroom instruction but to obligations created by prior decisions.
They also discuss the administrative burden placed on districts through grant applications, reporting requirements, and state-level bureaucracy. If districts must hire staff simply to apply for state funding or comply with state reporting requirements, fewer resources are available for classroom instruction.
The episode argues that education reform must include financial accountability, not just more funding.
What Reform Could Look Like
Across the conversation, several reform priorities emerge:
First, Oregon should make third-grade reading a central statewide goal. That means early testing, intervention, tutoring, and support before students fall too far behind.
Second, Oregon should restore meaningful graduation standards so a diploma represents actual readiness.
Third, teachers need classroom authority and administrative support when disruptive behavior prevents learning.
Fourth, schools should reduce screen dependence, especially in early grades.
Fifth, the Department of Education and State Board of Education should be refocused on academic basics and student outcomes.
Sixth, Oregon should reduce reporting burdens and administrative complexity so dollars move closer to classrooms.
Conclusion: Oregon’s Education Crisis Is Solvable
This episode does not present Oregon’s education problems as inevitable. It presents them as the result of choices.
Oregon chose to reduce standards. Oregon chose to tolerate low instructional time. Oregon chose to keep schools closed for long periods during COVID. Oregon chose to allow administrative complexity to grow. Oregon chose to shift focus away from core academics.
That means Oregon can also choose differently.
For parents, grandparents, educators, employers, and taxpayers, the question is whether Oregon will continue accepting poor results or demand a school system that prepares students for life, work, citizenship, and opportunity.
As Drazan argues in the episode, Oregon’s students are not statistics. They are the future of the state. And every year Oregon fails to act is a year those children do not get back.