An equity score of 32/100 ranks Judson Isd #811 of 1047 districts in Texas (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $11,253 per pupil, Judson Isd ranks #992 of 1207 Texas districts by per-pupil spending (Texas districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
25,871
Total Enrollment
32
Schools
$11,253
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined, High
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Judson Isd operates 32 public schools serving 25,871 students, placing it in the mid-size range in Texas. The school portfolio breaks down into 21 combined, 6 high, 5 middle schools, giving families a clear picture of grade-band coverage before they move, rent, or enrol. These enrollment and school figures come from the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) 2024-25 release, and the district is based in Bexar County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $11,253 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the lower half of 1207 Texas districts by per-pupil spending. See how Texas compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 46.4% local, 33.9% state, and 19.8% 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 32/100, ranked #811 of 1047 in Texas 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 3 of 32 schools offering Advanced Placement (44 AP courses district-wide), a 440.8:1 student-counselor ratio, above both the ASCA benchmark and the roughly 408:1 national average, and 36.1% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 58.7% Hispanic or Latino, 22.7% African American, 12.0% White across the district's schools. Its most demographically mixed campus is Copperfield El, with a diversity index of 66.0/100.
Its largest campus is Judson H S, enrolling 2,498 students (11% of the district's total enrollment). Its smallest is Bexar Co J J a E P, at 3 students, a 833x enrollment spread across the district's campuses.
Judson Isd school enrollment varies 833× across entities
Judson Isd school enrollment ranges from 3 students (lowest) to 2,498 students (highest), a spread of 2,495 students. That ratio is an extreme outlier spread — among the widest gaps observed anywhere in this dataset. Per-school staffing ratios, programme availability, and capital-renovation cycles often diverge inside the same district based on enrollment shape.
The reported share sits between 62.5% and 75%, above a simple majority but below the highest descriptive band used here. 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.
Judson Isd student-counselor ratio is 441:1 — high (typically associated with staffing constraints that limit per-student counselor time; CRDC data shows higher ratios cluster in larger urban systems)
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 Higher values may reflect larger urban scale or recent resource constraints that have widened the gap.
Judson Isd chronic absenteeism rate is 36.1% — 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.