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.
Leoti, Kansas - 2 schools
An equity score of 49/100 ranks Leoti #135 of 250 districts in Kansas (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $14,722 per pupil, Leoti ranks #143 of 285 Kansas districts by per-pupil spending (Kansas districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
392
Total Enrollment
2
Schools
$14,722
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Leoti operates 2 public schools serving 392 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Kansas. 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 Wichita County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $14,722 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the lower half of 285 Kansas districts by per-pupil spending. See how Kansas compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 35.8% local, 58.0% state, and 6.2% 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 49/100, ranked #135 of 250 in Kansas against a state average of 50, in line with the typical spread seen across the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 864.1:1 student-counselor ratio, above both the ASCA benchmark and the roughly 408:1 national average, and 12.9% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 58.9% White, 40.1% Hispanic or Latino, 0.3% Asian across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Wichita County Elementary, enrolling 221 students (54% of the district's total enrollment).
Wichita County Elementary accounts for 54.2% of all Leoti student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Leoti a distant remainder — means Leoti-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.
Leoti student-counselor ratio is 864:1 — well above typical (typically associated with unusually large scale or acute resource constraints)
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 above typical often signal acute resource constraints or a structurally different scale than most peers — worth reading alongside the underlying counts, not the ratio alone.
Leoti chronic absenteeism rate is 12.9% — 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.