Actual costs of public and private education in Oregon

Chana Cox thb Actual costs of public and private education in Oregonby Chana Cox

Judging by the responses to recent posts by Steve Buckstein and Kathryn Hickok, there is a great deal of confusion about the actual costs of a public and private education in Oregon. This post is an effort to reduce some of that confusion.  Where possible I have relied on the Department Education and the National Education Association.

Portland Public Schools

The costs of education per student in the United States averages $10,800  (See Department of Education cited report below.)  The National Education Association reports that in the 2010-2011 school year Oregon spent on average $12,386 per student on an Average Daily Attendance basis and $10,959 on a Fall Enrollment basis.  Those numbers are for Current Expenditures only, and do not seem to include capital outlays, interest on school debt, and future pension costs.
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/NEA_Rankings_and_Estimates010711.pdf  Pg. 96.

Several of the responders mentioned $6,000 per student as the state cost.  As Steve pointed out that is only the amount the State of Oregon gives each School District.  It does not include funding from local property taxes, on-going federal funding, bonds, and capital costs.  Yes, some of the 2009 stimulus money may have dried up, but that stimulus topped up existing federal funding.

Cato has come up with national numbers (1970-2010) based on federal government sources.

Cost of K 12 Public Education and Change in Achievement Actual costs of public and private education in Oregon

Private School Tuition

Tuition for private schools like Jesuit is not a good indication of actual costs of educating students, because the parents who are able to pay subsidize students who need financial assistance.  Having the well-to-do subsidize the less well-to-do, is an almost universal practice in private schools and colleges – unless those institutions have very large endowments and/or can raise charitable contributions for operating expenses.

The actual cost per student for most lower budget Catholic schools is probably about $6,500 per student.  Veritas, a Christian school that concentrates on the classical liberal arts education, charges something like $6,500 per year.  I have been told that the test results for graduating Veritas students compare favorably with those of most other schools in Oregon.

Many private schools manage to beg and borrow space, and they have a some  volunteer teachers.  They can get by on $3,000 a year per student.  A $1700 Childrens’ Fund Scholarship to a lower tuition private schools is certainly significant – particularly since very low income students would be eligible for other financial aid.

Virtual public charter schools

Connections Academy educates children for less than the $6,000 state component.  The county hosting Connections Academy collects from the State, pays Connections, and then splits the remainder with the home school district of the Connections student.  Although Connections is a for-profit operation, they are educating our children at significantly less than half of what we are paying for regular public schools in Portland.  There are of course all sorts of obvious reasons why that is possible.

Although it varies from district to district and school to school, in general, charter schools in this state get less public funding to educate children than regular public schools.  Some studies (http://www.nwceo.org/pdf/NWCEO_Charter_School_Funding_Study_May_2010.pdf

come up with estimates of less than 55%, although I suspect that the virtual schools take down the average for public schools as a whole.  Charter schools may also raise money by soliciting charitable contributions.  (e.g. Self Esteem Institute).

US as compared to International per student costs

One of the people who posted claimed that the US spends less per capita on education than most other countries in the world.  This is not true.  My data is from Comparative Indicators of Education in the United States and Other G-8 Countries: 2011October 2011, NCES  http://www.edpubs.gov/document/ed005289p.pdf?ck=704

The following are quotations from that Department of Education Report

In 2007, the United States ranked the highest among the G-8 countries in terms of expenditures per student at the combined primary and secondary education levels as well as at the higher education level.

In 2007, the expenditures per student in the United States were about $10,800 at the combined primary and secondary education levels and about $27,000 at the higher education level. Both figures were higher than the per student expenditures in all other G-8 countries, which ranged from about $4,900 in the Russian Federation to $8,600 in the United Kingdom at the combined primary and secondary levels. . . .

Overall (i.e., primary, secondary, and higher education together), the United States spent a higher percentage of GDP on education (7.1 percent) than all other G-8 countries, followed by Canada (6.1 percent), while Italy spent the lowest percentage (4.0 percent), followed by Germany (4.1 percent).

This Department of Education study also reported that US starting salaries for teachers are higher than any of the other G-8 nations except Germany. Nevertheless, our scores in every subject are well below the average of G-8 nations. This holds true when we are comparing our strongest students to their strongest students and when we are comparing our most economically disadvantaged students to their most economically disadvantaged students.

In the sciences and math we are near the bottom of the pack.

It seems that we are spending more and getting less K-12 education for our money when we are compared with other nations.  Our education system is not working.

Chana Cox, U-Choose Education Forum, and Lewis and Clark faculty emerita

tt twitter big4 Actual costs of public and private education in Oregon tt digg big4 Actual costs of public and private education in Oregon tt facebook big4 Actual costs of public and private education in Oregon tt reddit big4 Actual costs of public and private education in Oregon

Posted by at 01:12 | Posted in Education | 55 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • David Appell

    The author is playing games with numbers, and not playing them very well.

    The 2011 numbers are estimates only, not actual. 

    Furthermore, of what relevance is a number based on average daily attendance? That number will be high if there is a high rate of absenteeism, the latter being precisely what you do not want. Absenteeism doesn’t reduce the inherent cost of education in any way. So that comparison is meaningless, at best, and a contra-indicator at worst.It seems to me the most relevant statistic is school revenue per enrolled student, Table F-2 (pg 39). That shows a 2009-2010 US average of $11,841 and an Oregon average of $11,391 — 3.8% lower. Oregon is also lower than the US in the percentage of personal income spent on public education, and almost all other relevant funding numbers. 

    • SpyVspy

      Oregon is lower in number of students actually graduating, too.

    • Steve Buckstein

      David, by the numbers you accept, Oregon spent 3.8% less per student than the US average in 2009-10.  Will you also accept Oregon Employment Department figures that show Oregonians average personal income in 2009 was 8.8% lower than the national average?*  If so, then it looks like we’re funding public schools well above our ability to pay, a concept I assume you like.

      * source: http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/pcpi.pdf

      • 3H

        Ummm.. close.. but that means we’re paying more in terms of our percentage of our average income.. which isn’t the same thing as saying we’re funding public school above our ability to pay.   We could be paying more, but still have the ability, yes?

        • Steve Buckstein

           Sure, I guess we “could” pay more; but research shows that after some minimum amount it matters little how much we spend per child, the results don’t get much better. Look at Newark and Washington DC, places that spend more than twice as many dollars per student as Oregon does already.

          Do we really want to pour billions more dollars into a system that is fundamentally flawed?

          • 3H

            Well, arguing that we already spend enough (or too much) is different than saying we were funding schools above our ability to pay.  LOL.. you’re tap-dancing a little here don’t you think?

            I wasn’t saying we should pay more.. I was pointing out that paying more didn’t equate to spending more than our ability to pay.  

          • valley person

             ”but research shows that after some minimum amount it matters little how much we spend per child”

            What research is that? More CATO Institute? Rich people send their kids to very expensive private schools, or live in suburbs with very well funded public schools. Are you saying they are all stupid, because they could get the same quality education for their kids at the price of a ghetto school? Rich people are dumb?

            I didn’t think so. Therefore, according to the education “marketplace,” money does matter. It buys better infrastructure, better tools, and better teachers, and a better education. I mean, how could it NOT matter? You might as well turn capitalism on its head, suggesting money has no relationship to quality. 

      • David Appell

        The report linked above says OR per-capita income is 9.5% lower than the US average (Table D-4). However, Oregon students are not preparing for a world populated only with other Oregon students, but, in a highly mobile society like ours, they will be competing with students from across the country — and, increasingly, from across the world. 

        I doubt a potential employer is going to want to hear, “Well, I would have learned Excel, but my school couldn’t afford to teach it because my state’s citizens had less-than-average income.”

  • SpyVspy

    In New Jersey some districts are spending 29,000 per student per year with absolutely no improvement and nothing to show for it. It never was about the money. It is about the union thugs doing the “teaching”.

  • Ardbeg

    Oh great, another lousy article.  What is it with this site and education? Too many inaccuracies and a terribly uneducated presentation.  Not even worth disproving.  Cato institute-really?  Go back to Idaho. This from a Ph. D.?  So you (a Ph.D) are going to compare “Many private schools manage to beg and borrow space, and they have
    some volunteer teachers.  They can get by on $3,000 a year per student.” to private schools in Portland?  And conclude they are cheaper?  Yes, I’m sure some ‘private school’ run in some borrowed basement by some untrained mom or dad, is cheaper.  I wouldn’t call it a school though.  Maybe a glorified ‘daycare’, but not a school.  Here are some facts:

    OES 24k a year tuition. Jesuit=$13,000.
    Catlin Gable=$24,750.
    Northwest Academy=$18,250.
    Central catholic=$10,300
    St Marys-$14,375
    Portland Adventist=$10,000
    Thomas Edison HS=$18,000

    Private schools in the rest of the country must take kids for free to average out the unusually high tuition of Portland schools.

    How about an article looking at the increase in costs of private schools, or at least that information in your post.

    Republicans/conservatives on this sight couldn’t care less about public education.  They want it gone for 2 reasons and only 2 reasons. 1) it means less taxes they have to pay and 2) no more unions giving money to candidates that they do not support.

  • 3H

    So, what is the answer?  I know for some it would be getting rid of teaching unions.  How do we know it’s bad teachers, and not bad management styles and assumptions?   Finland which has, it seems, a very well respected educational system also has a unionized teaching force.  The difference appears to be that they give teachers the room to actually teach.   Paying people less will probably only result in bad results that are cheaper.

    http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2011/11/_my_conclusion_is_that.html

    • Chana Cox

      I never suggested the answer is getting rid of unions.  I believe that the answer is genuine school choice with the public schools (presumably unionized) as an option.  With choice, I believe those schools will have to compete and they will become better.  It has happened in places like Milwaukee.  Having choice options, empowers those many teachers and administrators in the public school system to argue within their organization for genuine improvement.  Competition works that way. 

      My children were educated in a basement.  That has nothing to do with the quality of their education.  In subsequent life they went on to do very well at very good colleges.  It was called home schooling.  If you want the bells and whistles, send your children to OES or the public schools. 

      Again tuition at any private institution is not a good indication of costs of the education because those who pay full tuition subsidize those who cannot afford full tuition.  It is, however, an excellent indication of how much those who can pay will pay.  

      • 3H

        I actually wasn’t thinking of you, just other conversations on OC that seemed to imply that many of the problems with public education would be fixed by banning (or ending) Teacher’s Unions.  Sorry about the confusion.

        But, we already have choice, don’t we?  People can send their children to private school, parents can form charter schools, and definitely parents can make the choice to home school.  

      • valley person

        We already have “choice” Chana. Parents can choose taxpayer supported public schools or they can choose home schooling or private schools. What you seem to want is taxpayer support for parents sending their kids to private schools, which in the US are nearly all religious institutions.

        And, those institutions can “choose” who to let in and who to keep out, unlike our public schools.

        • MoBetter

          We DO NOT have choice. We are forced to pay for substandard public education even if we don’t use it.

          • valley person

             We are forced to pay for all sorts of things. I had to pay for a war in Iraq I thought was stupid. You are a citizen of this nation and state, you pay taxes. Get over it.

          • Steve Buckstein

            Valley, are you telling us that you’ve never objected to the war you consider stupid? You’ve never objected to all the tax money wasted pursuing it?

            That’s all school choice supporters are doing; objecting and pointing out a better way.  As you say above, “get over it.”

          • Ardbeg

            Steve- comparing taxes for things like roads, bridges and schools to a war against a country that neither had wmd’s nor had attacked the US or one of it’s allies are most certainly different.

          • Steve Buckstein

            Of course they’re different, but telling someone to get over their objection to tax dollars being spent a certain way applies in both cases.

            Even if one agrees that public schools should be funded with tax dollars, that’s not an open invitation to take any amount, no matter how ineffective the results.

          • valley person

             I certainly did object, but never withheld paying my taxes as a protest. For that matter, I didn’t suggest that the war be privatized. 

            I don’t question your right to object to public schools. But I have two objections to your “School choice” campaign. First, it is blatantly deceptive marketing.  Parents already have multiple choices, as pointed out. Its not like private or home schooling is illegal.  What you are seeking is taxpayer support for private, mostly religious schooling. Which raises my 2nd objection. I don’t want my taxes going to support someone’s, anyone’s religion.

            There is also the question of who should pay for education, period. Most households have no kids in school. Using force to make people without kids pay for schooling other people’s kids should be a no-no to a true libertarian right? So why not make that your target? End taxpayer supported education. Since you would cut everyone’s taxes substantially, you could have a winning issue.

            Of course, we would be raising a bunch of ignoramuses, but that is the price of freedom right?

          • LivingFree

            Can’t we all just give peace a chance???

          • valley person

             No one is stopping you.

          • Steve Buckstein

            No one is talking here about withholding tax dollars because the government mispends them for poor educational results. Perhaps they should, but that’s again a separate issue.

            We’ll have to agree to disagree whether our “school choice campaign” is deceptive marketing. For you to label it such just might mean that it’s more effective than you’d prefer.

             Your final point about who should pay for education is, of course, a terribly important one, but not the focus of this post, or even the broader school choice movement. Given that K-12 is funded primarily by general taxes, the school choice movement is trying to  make clear that having the money follow the child is the best way to get good results. You may disagree, but that’s what this is about.

          • 3H

            You’ve side-stepped the fact that there is already school choice.  Do you think public monies should be used to help fund education at religious schools?

          • Steve Buckstein

             I think whatever state public money is allocated for K-12 education should follow the child to any legal school, public, private, religious or home school. Not to benefit any particular school, but to further that child’s education.

          • David Appell

            Then, should the Westboro Baptist Church receive taxpayer money to set up a school to teach that God Hates Fags?

          • David Appell

            Then, should the Westboro Baptist Church receive taxpayer money to set up a school to teach that God Hates Fags?

          • David Appell

            Steve, youhave a problem answering direct questions. 

            I take it your answeris yes. 

            I object to my taxmoney going to teach hate. Many people would.

            Your vision for Americais somewhat terrifying.

          • Steve Buckstein

            See below.

          • valley person

             ”No one is talking here about withholding tax dollars because the government mispends them…”

            Why not? Why do you support taking money from me by force to educate someone else’s kid? What is your basis for that position?

            “For you to label it such just might mean that it’s more effective than you’d prefer.”

            Lots of lies and deceptions are effective Steve. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be exposed for what they are.

          • Steve Buckstein

             Ah, but I don’t support “taking money from you by force to educate someone else’s kid.” It’s already being taken from you without my permission.

          • valley person

             But not for religious education, which is what you are supporting here.

          • Steve Buckstein

            I’ll be happy to oppose your tax money going to religious schools if you’ll join me opposing any tax money going to public schools.

          • David Appell

            I have to agree with VP — why would his tax money going to support private religious schools be any less objectionable than the objections of those who are religious have about their tax money supporting abortion services? What is the difference?

        • Chana Cox

          I am not seeking tax payer support for any private school option except by the criteria in use in places like Washington DC.  If the public school district has been a failure for many years even by their own objective criteria (test results and drop out rates) and if the students who are being subsidized are genuinely financially needy, then I do believe vouchers make some sense as a last resort. 

          Personally, I do not support vouchers across the board, because, like any government subsidy, they will tend to increase private school costs.  They have done that at the college level.

          I do advocate more charter schools and more charter virtual schooling.  I believe that they are public options that will improve schools and will cut total taxpayer costs.

          • valley person

             Well Chana, that puts you at odds with your conservative and libertarian brethren around here. For the record, I agree with you. I have no desire to have poor kids trapped in lousy schools, public or otherwise. But blanket vouchers are bad policy.

  • Bob Clark

    An Archbishop who leads catholic elementary and high school education in the Portland area told me teachers in catholic schools make about 80% of comparable public school teachers (non-charters) in salary but that Catholics offer quite a bit less than public school districts in terms of healthcare and pension benefits. 

    There seems to be a rather long cycle to public-private employment compensation.  Back in the roaring 90s, the private sector salary grew robustly year in and year out; and if you went for a public job instead of a private job, you did so because of the relative job security and benefits while accepting less salary in exchange.  What seems to have happen after the 90s is public employment salaries continue to expand (a golden era for government growth) while private salaries are flat, such that now public and private salaries are close but the benefits of public workers generally far exceed those of private workers.  Governments are now strapped for monies, and so maybe public pay will now flatten out relative to private pay; but only if fiscal conservatives and the public in general put up resistance to increases in tax and spending via government.

    Certain people want to put a mote around public schools’ preeminence but school choice is making increasing inroads into education, even in Oregon.  This is for good reason because public school districts like Portland Public Schools (PPS) have goals not consistent with the goal of the family with children.  School choice allows the family with children to focus on getting their child(s) the most marketable skills so the child can provide for him or herself before or after college.  Public Schools like PPS have other goals besides this singular family goal, such as equity, social justice, and seemingly teaching almost absolute loyalty to progressive governance. 

    I believe PPS has become so dysfunctional the best outcome for local primary and secondary education might be a breaking up of PPS into several neighborhood districts, forcing them to compete by refocusing on the most valuable customer, that being the family and child.  Teaching reading (& the other two Rs) by far outstrips the goals of community and equity.  Some folks may want to point to Finland for its one-size fits all approach, but in America, school choice is coming like it or not. 

    • David Appell

      > Public Schools like PPS have other goals besides 
      > this singular family
      goal, such as equity, social 
      > justice, and seemingly teaching almost
      absolute 
      > loyalty to progressive governance.  

      Really? And what is the evidence for this?

  • JoelinPDX

    Oregon’s Democrats will always look out for their union goon education association buddies. Don’t look for any significant change in the way education is funded in Oregon. We’ll keep paying more and more and getting less and less.

    Amazing as it may seem, kids go to school four days a week much of the time…apparently because teachers are unable to consistently work five day weeks, eight hour a day.

    • 3H

      They go 5 days a week most of the time.  Every so often there is a teacher in-service day.  Because, back in the good old days you know, teachers had to do a lot of the administrative work on their own time.   How rude of them to want to be paid for that.   Why can’t they just work off the clock more?  Selfish!  That’s what they are. 

  • HBguy

    How much of a private schools budget is for special needs kids or to socio-economic factors that many private schools don’t have to budget for? How much is related to servicing home schooled kids? How about related to sports that home school kids get to participate in? 

    I would personally be thrilled if we could maintain the public school access and current level of service while using some tax money to help pay for some private school education at a lower cost. I don’t really care if part of a private schools curriculum is related to religion. If the kids get a good education at a reduced cost, while maintaining public education quality, more power to them.However, there are conditions. We can’t be paying for bad private school education. Poorly educated and ignorant children effect our society and it would be very unfair to kids who could miss out or fall behind just because their parents made a bad school choice. We need to be careful about the financial viability of private schools. We may want to require private schools that accept state money to take fair open enrollment, so that special needs and at risk kids have the opportunity to attend these schools as well.

    Of course, we have Democrats and the OEA fighting this tooth and nail, and private schools who probably don’t want it to really be a fair playing field but would prefer to skim the cream. 

  • Oregon Engineer

    If all of you who are so concerned that the data is incorrect or somebody is fudging the numbers to prove a point then look at the bottom line.  no matter how you slice it the amount of money spent per year has done nothing but gone up.  from 50 K in 1970 to 150K in 2010 with no improvement in national scores and reduction in some.  If any service you purchased went down in performance as the price increased you would quit the service. I don’t agree with Chana all the time but at least she was attempting to make a per student comparison.  I agree with her that most private schools offer aid to those who want to attend but don’t have the financial means as stated in her article in the section Private school tuition.  It seems most of you just want to blather on about nothing with out bothering to present facts to dispute the article including Ardberg trying to “prove” by tuItion “facts”  the schools are more expensive.  Again Chana was trying to present the “cost per student”.  again bottom line we spend a lot of tax money for “free education” and get little in return.

    • David Appell

      > If any service you purchased went down in > performance as the price increased you would 
      > quit the service.

      100 million cable subscribers say you’re wrong.

      And I have no idea what your “50K” and “150K” numbers refer to. 

  • David Appell

    Is it possible to get a blogging system here where comment boxes aren’t eventually measured in nanometers?

  • Steve Buckstein

    David, to avoid that nanometer comment box, I’ll respond to your question about whether the Westboro Baptist Church should receive taxpayer money to set up a “school to teach that God Hates Fags?”

    I would hope nobody would send their children to such a school, but my direct answer is YES, parents should be able to use tax credits to send their kids to that school if they choose. 

    This same argument was used by the OEA against Measure 11 here in 1990 which would have provided refundable tax credits for all K-12 kids to attend the schools of their choice. Recall that at that time the Rajneesh cult had taken over Antelope, OR. The OEA argued that kids could be going to “cult schools, even neo-nazi schools.”  My response then, and now, is that I believe it is ignorance that breeds bigotry, and hate. Our current public school system is failing to educate many kids, and I would rather take the risk that a few might go to hateful schools rather than leave them to fail in our current system. I doubt that many educated parents would send their kids to hateful schools; but uneducated, fearful ones might. Keeping our current virtual monopoly public school system for the vast majority of families is more likely to lead to the results you and I abhor than opening up a school choice system.

    • valley person

       To sum up then, you support forcing me and everyone else, against our will, to pay taxes to support the religious education of other people’s kids.

      And you call yourself a libertarian?

      • Steve Buckstein

        No, as long as tax money is going to support education, then I support letting the families choose where that money is spent to educate their children. Stop the taxation and I have no problem joining you in opposing your tax money going to religious schools. Until then, we’re debating how best to educate kids, given the forced method of payment.

        • valley person

           That is a cop out answer. You support forcing me to pay for parents to give their kids a religious education. That may not be your purpose, but it is the result of what you are advocating.

          Once again, we have libertarians being very inconsistent.  You are losing the one advantage you had with people. If all you are is union busters, you might as well become Pinkertons.

          • Steve Buckstein

            “You support forcing me to pay for parents to give their kids a religious education.”

            No, I’m not forcing you to do anything. The act of forcing you to pay those taxes is an act of federal, state and local governments. I’m simply suggesting that if the purpose of those taxes is to educate Oregon children, then a better way to do that is to let the families decide where to spend the money.

            You already have your way about the forced contributions for education. Can’t you be a little forgiving about how those you purportedly wish to help are allowed to get that education? Or do you want to control it all?

          • valley person

            I have no objection to helping pay for public school education. But you advocate changing the law to allow my tax money to be used to support religious education. You can mince words all you want Steve, it doesn’t change the effect of what you are advocating. You want the state to take money out of my pocket, by force if necessary, and hand it to someone else to send their kid to an institution of religious education. Meet your own petard.

            A true libertarian would never advocate something like this. 

          • Steve Buckstein

            Since you’re not a libertarian, apparently you cannot understand what a “true libertarian” would or would not necessarily advocate in this less than ideal situation. I’ve tried to explain it to you; obviously I failed. 

          • valley person

             No, I’m not Steve, but I did try on the libertarian suit for a few years right after college. I dropped out when I realized that, as evidenced here, libertarians are as hypocritical as every other political movement on earth. They (you) are perfectly willing to  fudge  principles or obfuscate their true intentions. All you are about is protecting the interests of the wealthy. Everything can be compromised for that objective.

            You have demonstrated this here and on the “right to work” nonsense. You are perfectly willing to use the government as an instrument to force others to fund things they don’t support, or to restrict private contracts you don’t happen to like.

            Modern day libertarians have situational ethics. No big deal, but it is hidden behind a holier than thou facade. Just be aware that some of us see right through it.

          • Steve Buckstein

            I have never claimed, and don’t believe, that I’m “holier than thou.”

            I do think, however, that I give workers and families more credit for running their own lives and making their own decisions than certain people here.

  • Chana Cox

    Just for the record, the Cato charts that I cited were based on official government and union reported costs.  The citations are on the charts.

    There are other Cato studies on per student costs in selected districts which might be controversial.  Cato put those numbers together using very arduous analysis of the available data — and reading the available data is very tricky.   What they see is a massive variation in actual student costs.  Inner city “problem” districts and districts in very high income districts may spend up to twice as much per student as the national averages. In this state, I believe that the Portland School districts spends more than rural school districts, but I do not have the data to support this belief.  Does anyone out there have the data? 

     

    • Steve Buckstein

      Chana, coming as close to David Appell’s accepted cost per enrolled student criteria above as possible, here’s the comparable 2009-10 school year info:

                                               Oregon     Portland Public Schools
      Cost per enrolled student     $11,391*            $12,129  **

      Therefore, yes Chana, Portland costs per student are higher than the average district in the state. Some rural districts are very small and actually board students, so their costs are way out of range, they account for very few students so probably don’t skew the average hardly at all.

      Sources
      * NEA report Table F-2 (pg 39) enrolled students per David’s comment above
      ** Multnomah County Tax Supervising and Conservation Commission 2009-10 Annual Report, PPS district data, for weighted Enrolled Extended students which is likely a higher number than what David prefers, giving him the benefit of the doubt (pages 187 and 188)

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)