An equity score of 80/100 ranks Edison Elementary #93 of 1526 districts in California (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $19,905 per pupil, Edison Elementary ranks #486 of 1880 California districts by per-pupil spending (California districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
1,092
Total Enrollment
2
Schools
$19,905
Per-Pupil Spending
Elementary
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Edison Elementary operates 2 public schools serving 1,092 students, placing it among the smallest districts in California. The school portfolio breaks down into 2 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 Kern County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $19,905 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the upper half of 1880 California districts by per-pupil spending. See how California compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 13.1% local, 64.3% state, and 22.6% 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 80/100, ranked #93 of 1526 in California against a state average of 50, notably more even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 861.5:1 student-counselor ratio, above both the ASCA benchmark and the roughly 408:1 national average, and 41.8% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 88.4% Hispanic or Latino, 6.2% White, 2.7% African American across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Orangewood Elementary, enrolling 617 students (56% of the district's total enrollment).
Orangewood Elementary accounts for 55.8% of all Edison Elementary student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Edison Elementary a distant remainder — means Edison Elementary-wide averages can mask substantial variation outside the largest entity. Grade band: elementary. 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 is at least 75%, indicating a high concentration of measured economic need. 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.
Edison Elementary student-counselor ratio is 862:1 — well above typical (typically associated with unusually large scale or acute resource constraints)
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 Values this far above typical often signal acute resource constraints or a structurally different scale than most peers — worth reading alongside the underlying counts, not the ratio alone.
Edison Elementary chronic absenteeism rate is 41.8% — 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.