An equity score of 69/100 ranks Lexington 03 #14 of 74 districts in South Carolina (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $16,602 per pupil, Lexington 03 ranks #18 of 75 South Carolina districts by per-pupil spending (South Carolina districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
1,977
Total Enrollment
4
Schools
$16,602
Per-Pupil Spending
High, Combined
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Lexington 03 operates 4 public schools serving 1,977 students, placing it among the smallest districts in South Carolina. The school portfolio breaks down into 1 high, 1 combined, 1 middle, 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 Lexington County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $16,602 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the upper half of 75 South Carolina districts by per-pupil spending. See how South Carolina compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 37.3% local, 44.9% state, and 17.8% 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 69/100, ranked #14 of 74 in South Carolina against a state average of 50, notably more even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
Academic infrastructure includes 1 of 4 schools offering Advanced Placement (1 AP courses district-wide), a 364.4:1 student-counselor ratio, well above the ASCA benchmark though still under the roughly 408:1 national average, and 31.2% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 48.8% White, 27.2% African American, 18.2% Hispanic or Latino across the district's schools. Its most demographically mixed campus is Batesburg-Leesville Primary School, with a diversity index of 66.0/100.
Batesburg-Leesville High School accounts for 27.6% of all Lexington 03 student enrollment
That dominant concentration means Lexington 03-wide averages can mask substantial variation outside the largest entity. Grade band: high. 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.
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.
Lexington 03 student-counselor ratio is 364:1 — 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.
Lexington 03 chronic absenteeism rate is 31.2% — 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.