Every figure on PlainSchools is rendered directly from the source NCES, CRDC and F-33 federal
records, no number is typed in by an editor. District totals are aggregated directly from the schools reporting under this district in the source records. See our
editorial standards & corrections policy, the
methodology behind these numbers, or
report a data error. Data current as of June 2026.
Hillsboro, Kansas - 2 schools
An equity score of 31/100 ranks Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh #210 of 250 districts in Kansas (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $13,419 per pupil, Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh ranks #205 of 285 Kansas districts by per-pupil spending (Kansas districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
640
Total Enrollment
2
Schools
$13,419
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh operates 2 public schools serving 640 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Kansas. 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 Marion County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $13,419 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the lower half of 285 Kansas districts by per-pupil spending. See how Kansas compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 25.0% local, 70.1% state, and 4.9% 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 31/100, ranked #210 of 250 in Kansas against a state average of 50, notably less even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 298:1 student-counselor ratio, somewhat above the 250:1 ASCA recommendation, and 30.4% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 87.8% White, 6.7% Hispanic or Latino, 1.6% African American across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Hillsboro Middle/High School, enrolling 310 students (52% of the district's total enrollment).
Hillsboro Middle/High School accounts for 48.4% of all Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh a distant remainder — means Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh-wide averages can mask substantial variation outside the dominant entity. Grade band: combined. A single dominant campus often anchors a district's program offerings and staffing patterns; the share helps explain why district-wide averages may not reflect the typical neighbourhood-school experience. When one entity dominates a region's footprint, its programmatic and budget decisions effectively set policy for a majority of the affected population.
Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh student-counselor ratio is 298:1 — near the typical range (US average ~408) — within the typical range for U.S. public districts
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 Variation between sub-units within Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh is typically wider than the Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh-aggregate figure suggests.
Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh chronic absenteeism rate is 30.4% — 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.