An equity score of 84/100 ranks Galeton Area Sd #33 of 649 districts in Pennsylvania (state average 49). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $23,000 per pupil, Galeton Area Sd ranks #58 of 672 Pennsylvania districts by per-pupil spending (Pennsylvania districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
325
Total Enrollment
1
Schools
$23,000
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Galeton Area Sd operates 1 public schools serving 325 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Pennsylvania. The school portfolio breaks down into 1 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 Potter County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $23,000 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, among the top 68 of 672 Pennsylvania districts by per-pupil spending. See how Pennsylvania compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 45.5% local, 48.8% state, and 5.6% federal, a balanced mix across local, state, and federal sources, spreading budget risk across funding cycles rather than concentrating it in one. The district's equity score is 84/100, ranked #33 of 649 in Pennsylvania against a state average of 49, notably more even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
Academic infrastructure includes 1 of 1 schools offering Advanced Placement (1 AP courses district-wide), a 325:1 student-counselor ratio, somewhat above the 250:1 ASCA recommendation, and 41.8% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Use the school table below to drill into any individual campus for its own demographic and resource profile.
Its largest campus is Galeton Area Sch, enrolling 325 students (100% of the district's total enrollment).
Galeton Area Sch accounts for 100.0% of all Galeton Area Sd student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Galeton Area Sd a distant remainder — means Galeton Area Sd-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.
Galeton Area Sd reports 58.8% free-lunch eligibility
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.
Galeton Area Sd student-counselor ratio is 325:1 — 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 Galeton Area Sd is typically wider than the Galeton Area Sd-aggregate figure suggests.
Galeton Area Sd 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.