At $21,755 per pupil, Golden Plains ranks #18 of 286 Kansas districts by per-pupil spending (Kansas districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
163
Total Enrollment
3
Schools
$21,755
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined, High
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Golden Plains operates 3 public schools serving 163 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Kansas. The school portfolio breaks down into 1 combined, 1 high, 1 middle 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 Sheridan County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $21,755 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, among the top 29 of 286 Kansas districts by per-pupil spending. See how Kansas compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 24.9% local, 68.5% state, and 6.6% federal, a state-revenue-heavy mix that insulates the district somewhat from local property-tax volatility, though it ties funding to state budget cycles.
a 37.6:1 student-counselor ratio, that meets the ASCA-recommended benchmark, and 37.5% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 71.3% White, 28.2% Hispanic or Latino across the district's schools. Its most demographically mixed campus is Golden Plains Middle, with a diversity index of 42.9/100.
Its largest campus is Golden Plains Elem, enrolling 71 students (45% of the district's total enrollment).
Golden Plains Elem accounts for 43.6% of all Golden Plains student enrollment
That dominant concentration means Golden Plains-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. Enrollment-weighted aggregates give this entity more weight than any smaller peer, while an unweighted entity average treats every record equally.
Golden Plains school enrollment varies 2.2× across entities
Golden Plains school enrollment ranges from 32 students (lowest) to 71 students (highest), a spread of 39 students. That relatively narrow ratio reflects an unusually homogeneous campus portfolio, most districts have a wider mix of school sizes. Per-school staffing ratios, programme availability, and capital-renovation cycles often diverge inside the same district based on enrollment shape.
Golden Plains reports 56.6% 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.
Golden Plains student-counselor ratio is 38:1 — 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.
Golden Plains chronic absenteeism rate is 37.5% — 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.