An equity score of 38/100 ranks Stanfield Sd 61 #116 of 160 districts in Oregon (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $14,105 per pupil, Stanfield Sd 61 ranks #168 of 196 Oregon districts by per-pupil spending (Oregon districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
525
Total Enrollment
2
Schools
$14,105
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined, Elementary
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Stanfield Sd 61 operates 2 public schools serving 525 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Oregon. The school portfolio breaks down into 1 combined, 1 elementary schools, a small enough portfolio that most families will interact with nearly every campus in the district at some point. These enrollment and school figures come from the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) 2024-25 release, and the district is based in Umatilla County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $14,105 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the lower half of 196 Oregon districts by per-pupil spending. See how Oregon compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 26.4% local, 65.6% state, and 7.9% federal, a state-revenue-heavy mix that insulates the district somewhat from local property-tax volatility, though it ties funding to state budget cycles. The district's equity score is 38/100, ranked #116 of 160 in Oregon against a state average of 50, notably less even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 249.5:1 student-counselor ratio, that meets the ASCA-recommended benchmark, and 33.1% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 47.8% White, 47.3% Hispanic or Latino, 0.2% African American across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Stanfield Secondary School, enrolling 264 students (53% of the district's total enrollment).
Stanfield Secondary School accounts for 50.3% of all Stanfield Sd 61 student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Stanfield Sd 61 a distant remainder — means Stanfield Sd 61-wide averages can mask substantial variation outside the largest entity. Grade band: combined. The share measures enrollment concentration only; it does not establish how the district allocates programs, capital, or staff. Because it contains a majority of the affected population, enrollment-weighted aggregates will sit closer to this entity's reported fields than to those of smaller peers; an unweighted entity count answers a different question.
The reported share clears the 50% majority mark. Title I operates under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), but its statutory allocation uses additional LEA-level counts and rules not represented by this average. This percentage is an economic-need context measure; it does not establish a Title I award, show dollars received, or describe how funds are distributed among campuses.
Stanfield Sd 61 student-counselor ratio is 250:1 — low (typically associated with meeting or exceeding the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recommended 250:1 benchmark, which correlates with stronger college and career counseling capacity)
student-counselor ratio is the simplest comparative metric but it does not capture the full picture: the ratio counts FTE counselors against total enrollment, districts that contract intervention or social-emotional staff outside the counselor classification may be under-counted Lower values often correlate with smaller scale and population characteristics rather than higher resource budgets per se.
Stanfield Sd 61 chronic absenteeism rate is 33.1% — high (typically associated with higher-than-average disruption; recent CRDC data showed elevated rates persisting after pandemic-era schooling changes)
chronic absenteeism rate is the simplest comparative metric but it does not capture the full picture: a student is chronically absent if they miss ≥10% of enrolled days for any reason, illness, family obligations, or disengagement Higher values may reflect larger urban scale or recent resource constraints that have widened the gap.