An equity score of 76/100 ranks Gresham School District #47 of 403 districts in Wisconsin (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $17,747 per pupil, Gresham School District ranks #66 of 423 Wisconsin districts by per-pupil spending (Wisconsin districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
300
Total Enrollment
2
Schools
$17,747
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Gresham School District operates 2 public schools serving 300 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Wisconsin. 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 Shawano County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $17,747 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the upper half of 423 Wisconsin districts by per-pupil spending. See how Wisconsin compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 46.7% local, 39.9% state, and 13.4% 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 76/100, ranked #47 of 403 in Wisconsin against a state average of 50, notably more even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 287:1 student-counselor ratio, somewhat above the 250:1 ASCA recommendation, and 33.0% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 44.9% White, 8.0% Hispanic or Latino, 0.4% Asian across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Gresham High, enrolling 155 students (54% of the district's total enrollment).
Gresham High accounts for 51.7% of all Gresham School District student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Gresham School District a distant remainder — means Gresham School District-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.
Gresham School District reports 54.5% 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.
Gresham School District student-counselor ratio is 287:1 — 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 Gresham School District is typically wider than the Gresham School District-aggregate figure suggests.
Gresham School District chronic absenteeism rate is 33.0% — 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.