An equity score of 47/100 ranks Exeter R-Vi #242 of 433 districts in Missouri (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $10,994 per pupil, Exeter R-Vi ranks #457 of 552 Missouri districts by per-pupil spending (Missouri districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
310
Total Enrollment
2
Schools
$10,994
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined, High
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Exeter R-Vi operates 2 public schools serving 310 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Missouri. The school portfolio breaks down into 1 combined, 1 high 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 Barry County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $10,994 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the lower half of 552 Missouri districts by per-pupil spending. See how Missouri compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 37.2% local, 51.2% state, and 11.6% 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 47/100, ranked #242 of 433 in Missouri against a state average of 50, in line with the typical spread seen across the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 83.3:1 student-counselor ratio, that meets the ASCA-recommended benchmark, and 10.2% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 84.8% White, 7.4% Asian, 4.5% Hispanic or Latino across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Exeter Elem., enrolling 224 students (67% of the district's total enrollment).
Exeter Elem. accounts for 67.3% of all Exeter R-Vi student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Exeter R-Vi a distant remainder — means Exeter R-Vi-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.
Exeter R-Vi student-counselor ratio is 83:1 — well below typical (typically associated with unusually small scale or exceptionally high per-unit investment)
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 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.
Exeter R-Vi chronic absenteeism rate is 10.2% — low (typically associated with lower-than-average attendance disruption; districts in this range often have attendance interventions, robust transportation, or smaller catchments that reduce barriers)
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 Lower values often correlate with smaller scale and population characteristics rather than higher resource budgets per se.