An equity score of 75/100 ranks Matchbook Learning #39 of 372 districts in Indiana (state average 50). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $15,214 per pupil, Matchbook Learning ranks #59 of 405 Indiana districts by per-pupil spending (Indiana districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
641
Total Enrollment
1
Schools
$15,214
Per-Pupil Spending
Elementary
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Matchbook Learning operates 1 public schools serving 641 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Indiana. The school portfolio breaks down into 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 Marion County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $15,214 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the upper half of 405 Indiana districts by per-pupil spending. See how Indiana compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 12.8% local, 71.9% state, and 15.3% 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 75/100, ranked #39 of 372 in Indiana against a state average of 50, notably more even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 353.5:1 student-counselor ratio, well above the ASCA benchmark though still under the roughly 408:1 national average, and 42.4% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 58.3% Hispanic or Latino, 35.1% African American, 3.1% White across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Matchbook Learning, enrolling 707 students (100% of the district's total enrollment).
Matchbook Learning accounts for 100.0% of all Matchbook Learning student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Matchbook Learning a distant remainder — means Matchbook Learning-wide averages can mask substantial variation outside the largest entity. Grade band: elementary. The share measures enrollment concentration only; it does not establish how the district allocates programs, capital, or staff. Because it contains a majority of the affected population, enrollment-weighted aggregates will sit closer to this entity's reported fields than to those of smaller peers; an unweighted entity count answers a different question.
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.
Matchbook Learning student-counselor ratio is 354:1 — 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.
Matchbook Learning chronic absenteeism rate is 42.4% — well above typical (typically associated with unusually large scale or acute resource constraints)
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 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.