An equity score of 74/100 ranks Lead Hill School District #38 of 250 districts in Arkansas (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $14,077 per pupil, Lead Hill School District ranks #66 of 255 Arkansas districts by per-pupil spending (Arkansas districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
377
Total Enrollment
2
Schools
$14,077
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Lead Hill School District operates 2 public schools serving 377 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Arkansas. 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 Boone County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $14,077 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the upper half of 255 Arkansas districts by per-pupil spending. See how Arkansas compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 27.8% local, 42.5% state, and 29.7% 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 74/100, ranked #38 of 250 in Arkansas against a state average of 50, notably more even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 370:1 student-counselor ratio, well above the ASCA benchmark though still under the roughly 408:1 national average, and 30.6% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 91.9% White, 1.9% Hispanic or Latino across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Lead Hill High School, enrolling 185 students (50% of the district's total enrollment).
Lead Hill High School accounts for 49.1% of all Lead Hill School District student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Lead Hill School District a distant remainder — means Lead Hill 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. Enrollment-weighted aggregates give this entity more weight than any smaller peer, while an unweighted entity average treats every record equally.
Lead Hill School District reports 98.4% free-lunch eligibility
The reported share is above 87.5%, so economic need is widespread across the measured student population. 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.
Lead Hill School District student-counselor ratio is 370:1 — 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.
Lead Hill School District chronic absenteeism rate is 30.6% — 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.