Every figure on PlainSchools is rendered directly from the source NCES, CRDC and F-33 federal
records, no number is typed in by an editor. District totals are aggregated directly from the schools reporting under this district in the source records. See our
editorial standards & corrections policy, the
methodology behind these numbers, or
report a data error. Data current as of June 2026.
Hesston, Kansas - 3 schools
An equity score of 23/100 ranks Hesston #227 of 250 districts in Kansas (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $11,389 per pupil, Hesston ranks #271 of 285 Kansas districts by per-pupil spending (Kansas districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
870
Total Enrollment
3
Schools
$11,389
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined, High
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Hesston operates 3 public schools serving 870 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Kansas. The school portfolio breaks down into 1 combined, 1 high, 1 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 Harvey County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $11,389 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, among the bottom 29 of 285 Kansas districts by per-pupil spending. See how Kansas compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 19.0% local, 74.5% state, and 6.5% 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 23/100, ranked #227 of 250 in Kansas against a state average of 50, notably less even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
Academic infrastructure includes 1 of 3 schools offering Advanced Placement (1 AP courses district-wide), a 284.3:1 student-counselor ratio, somewhat above the 250:1 ASCA recommendation, and 14.2% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 85.0% White, 8.6% Hispanic or Latino, 1.5% African American across the district's schools. Its most demographically mixed campus is Hesston Elem, with a diversity index of 31.5/100.
Its largest campus is Hesston Elem, enrolling 306 students (36% of the district's total enrollment).
Hesston Elem accounts for 35.2% of all Hesston student enrollment
That dominant concentration means Hesston-wide averages can mask substantial variation outside the dominant entity. Grade band: combined. A single dominant campus often anchors a district's program offerings and staffing patterns; the share helps explain why district-wide averages may not reflect the typical neighbourhood-school experience. When one entity dominates a region's footprint, its programmatic and budget decisions effectively set policy for a majority of the affected population.
Hesston student-counselor ratio is 284:1 — 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 Hesston is typically wider than the Hesston-aggregate figure suggests.
Hesston chronic absenteeism rate is 14.2% — 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.