An equity score of 60/100 ranks Bunker R-Iii #146 of 433 districts in Missouri (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $13,405 per pupil, Bunker R-Iii ranks #236 of 552 Missouri districts by per-pupil spending (Missouri districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
232
Total Enrollment
2
Schools
$13,405
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Bunker R-Iii operates 2 public schools serving 232 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Missouri. The school portfolio breaks down into 2 combined 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 Reynolds County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $13,405 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the upper half of 552 Missouri districts by per-pupil spending. See how Missouri compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 63.0% local, 17.4% state, and 19.6% federal, a local-revenue-heavy mix that leaves the district more exposed to property-tax swings and local ballot measures than state-funded peers. The district's equity score is 60/100, ranked #146 of 433 in Missouri against a state average of 50, notably more even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 228:1 student-counselor ratio, that meets the ASCA-recommended benchmark, and 7.7% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 95.1% White, 3.2% Hispanic or Latino, 1.7% Asian across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Bunker High, enrolling 123 students (54% of the district's total enrollment).
Bunker High accounts for 53.0% of all Bunker R-Iii student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Bunker R-Iii a distant remainder — means Bunker R-Iii-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 sits between 62.5% and 75%, above a simple majority but below the highest descriptive band used here. 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.
Bunker R-Iii student-counselor ratio is 228:1 — 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.
Bunker R-Iii chronic absenteeism rate is 7.7% — well below typical (typically associated with unusually small scale or exceptionally high per-unit investment)
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 Values this far below typical often correlate with unusually small scale or population characteristics rather than higher resource budgets per se — worth checking whether the underlying denominator is itself an outlier.