An equity score of 42/100 ranks Rush Springs #183 of 439 districts in Oklahoma (state average 38). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $12,297 per pupil, Rush Springs ranks #256 of 540 Oklahoma districts by per-pupil spending (Oklahoma districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
482
Total Enrollment
3
Schools
$12,297
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined, High
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Rush Springs operates 3 public schools serving 482 students, placing it among the smallest districts in Oklahoma. The school portfolio breaks down into 1 combined, 1 high, 1 middle 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 Grady County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $12,297 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, in the upper half of 540 Oklahoma districts by per-pupil spending. See how Oklahoma compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 48.0% local, 34.4% state, and 17.7% 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 42/100, ranked #183 of 439 in Oklahoma against a state average of 38, in line with the typical spread seen across the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 381.9:1 student-counselor ratio, well above the ASCA benchmark though still under the roughly 408:1 national average, and 39.2% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 72.6% White, 3.7% Hispanic or Latino, 0.6% African American across the district's schools. Its most demographically mixed campus is Rush Springs Es, with a diversity index of 47.3/100.
Its largest campus is Rush Springs Es, enrolling 234 students (49% of the district's total enrollment).
Rush Springs Es accounts for 48.5% of all Rush Springs student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Rush Springs a distant remainder — means Rush Springs-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.
Rush Springs school enrollment varies 2.2× across entities
Rush Springs school enrollment ranges from 106 students (lowest) to 234 students (highest), a spread of 128 students. That relatively narrow ratio reflects an unusually homogeneous campus portfolio, most districts have a wider mix of school sizes. Per-school staffing ratios, programme availability, and capital-renovation cycles often diverge inside the same district based on enrollment shape.
Rush Springs student-counselor ratio is 382:1 — 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.
Rush Springs chronic absenteeism rate is 39.2% — 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.