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.
Thompson, North Dakota - 2 schools
An equity score of 26/100 ranks Thompson 61 #90 of 101 districts in North Dakota (state average 51). Derived live from how evenly resources are distributed across the district's schools.
At $9,646 per pupil, Thompson 61 ranks #167 of 168 North Dakota districts by per-pupil spending (North Dakota districts). NCES F-33 finance data.
656
Total Enrollment
2
Schools
$9,646
Per-Pupil Spending
Combined
School Types
District-Level NCES Analysis
Thompson 61 operates 2 public schools serving 656 students, placing it among the smallest districts in North Dakota. 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 Grand Forks County.
Per-pupil expenditure runs $9,646 according to the NCES F-33 School District Finance Survey, among the bottom 17 of 168 North Dakota districts by per-pupil spending. See how North Dakota compares in our national per-pupil spending analysis. The funding mix is 24.2% local, 67.5% state, and 8.3% 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 26/100, ranked #90 of 101 in North Dakota against a state average of 51, notably less even than the typical district in the state for how evenly funding reaches its schools.
a 239.8:1 student-counselor ratio, that meets the ASCA-recommended benchmark, and 4.8% chronic absenteeism from the 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection. Demographically, the student body averages 93.5% White, 1.7% Hispanic or Latino, 0.9% African American across the district's schools.
Its largest campus is Thompson Elementary School, enrolling 399 students (59% of the district's total enrollment).
Thompson Elementary School accounts for 58.8% of all Thompson 61 student enrollment
That is an overwhelming concentration, leaving the rest of Thompson 61 a distant remainder — means Thompson 61-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.
Thompson 61 student-counselor ratio is 240:1 — low (typically associated with meeting or exceeding the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recommended 250:1 benchmark, which correlates with stronger college and career counseling capacity)
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 Lower values often correlate with smaller scale and population characteristics rather than higher resource budgets per se.
Thompson 61 chronic absenteeism rate is 4.8% — well below typical (typically associated with unusually small scale or exceptionally high per-unit investment)
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 below typical often correlate with unusually small scale or population characteristics rather than higher resource budgets per se — worth checking whether the underlying denominator is itself an outlier.