Find a district › National Trail Local

National Trail Local

What its pupils achieve, and how little of it the funding side explains.

Against districts with comparable poverty

This district
86.4
A district's tested students distributed across Ohio's achievement levels, weighted so higher levels count for more. It tracks the economically disadvantaged share at −0.85, so most of what it appears to say about a district is poverty. Performance Index →, 2024-25
Median of its poverty fifth
83.3
121 districts in the second-poorest fifth, 52%–67% economically disadvantaged
Difference
+3.1
points, against like-composed districts

National Trail Local scores 3.1 points above the median of its poverty fifth: 86.4 against 83.3. Every district in that fifth, by Performance Index — the shaded box is its middle half, and the rule marked National Trail Local is this district. The gap in the third tile is worth what the width of this box says it is worth.

Performance Index 86.4 70th percentile of its fifth
7595National Trail LocalFifth's median 83.3Ohio median 88.3
7595National Trail LocalFifth's median 83.3Ohio median 88.3
7595National Trail LocalFifth's median 83.3Ohio median 88.3
The values
  • Fairport Harbor Exempted Village: Performance Index 72.0, 65% economically disadvantaged
  • Adena Local: Performance Index 74.0, 54% economically disadvantaged
  • Sidney City: Performance Index 74.2, 65% economically disadvantaged
  • Washington Local: Performance Index 74.7, 65% economically disadvantaged
  • Bucyrus City: Performance Index 75.8, 64% economically disadvantaged
  • Harrison Hills City: Performance Index 76.1, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Cardington-Lincoln Local: Performance Index 77.0, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Urbana City: Performance Index 77.2, 66% economically disadvantaged
  • Springfield Local: Performance Index 77.9, 58% economically disadvantaged
  • Ridgedale Local: Performance Index 78.0, 58% economically disadvantaged
  • Reading Community City: Performance Index 78.2, 58% economically disadvantaged
  • Marietta City: Performance Index 78.2, 62% economically disadvantaged
  • Gallipolis City: Performance Index 78.2, 63% economically disadvantaged
  • Kenton City: Performance Index 78.3, 64% economically disadvantaged
  • Federal Hocking Local: Performance Index 78.4, 54% economically disadvantaged
  • South-Western City: Performance Index 78.5, 67% economically disadvantaged
  • Bradford Exempted Village: Performance Index 78.8, 56% economically disadvantaged
  • Bridgeport Exempted Village: Performance Index 79.0, 67% economically disadvantaged
  • Caldwell Exempted Village: Performance Index 79.2, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Willard City: Performance Index 79.2, 64% economically disadvantaged
  • Switzerland of Ohio Local: Performance Index 79.3, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • East Palestine City: Performance Index 79.4, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Wickliffe City: Performance Index 79.5, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • Springfield Local: Performance Index 79.5, 56% economically disadvantaged
  • New Lebanon Local School District: Performance Index 79.5, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Newton Falls Exempted Village: Performance Index 79.7, 61% economically disadvantaged
  • Wilmington City: Performance Index 79.8, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Brown Local: Performance Index 79.9, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Franklin Local: Performance Index 80.1, 56% economically disadvantaged
  • Edgewood City: Performance Index 80.2, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • Lancaster City: Performance Index 80.2, 59% economically disadvantaged
  • Mount Gilead Exempted Village: Performance Index 80.4, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • Minford Local: Performance Index 80.4, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Adams County Ohio Valley Local: Performance Index 80.6, 66% economically disadvantaged
  • Brookfield Local: Performance Index 80.7, 63% economically disadvantaged
  • Van Wert City: Performance Index 81.1, 54% economically disadvantaged
  • North Baltimore Local: Performance Index 81.2, 56% economically disadvantaged
  • Belpre City: Performance Index 81.4, 59% economically disadvantaged
  • Toronto City: Performance Index 81.4, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Tecumseh Local: Performance Index 81.4, 66% economically disadvantaged
  • Franklin City: Performance Index 81.5, 61% economically disadvantaged
  • Walnut Township Local: Performance Index 81.7, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • Geneva Area City: Performance Index 81.7, 59% economically disadvantaged
  • Buckeye Local: Performance Index 81.8, 56% economically disadvantaged
  • Newcomerstown Exempted Village: Performance Index 81.8, 66% economically disadvantaged
  • Hamilton Local: Performance Index 82.2, 62% economically disadvantaged
  • Piqua City: Performance Index 82.2, 65% economically disadvantaged
  • Greenon Local: Performance Index 82.5, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Cuyahoga Falls City: Performance Index 82.5, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • East Clinton Local: Performance Index 82.5, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Martins Ferry City: Performance Index 82.5, 65% economically disadvantaged
  • Elgin Local: Performance Index 82.6, 62% economically disadvantaged
  • Claymont City: Performance Index 82.6, 63% economically disadvantaged
  • Madison Local: Performance Index 82.6, 66% economically disadvantaged
  • Northwood Local Schools: Performance Index 82.7, 59% economically disadvantaged
  • Greenville City: Performance Index 82.8, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • New London Local: Performance Index 82.9, 57% economically disadvantaged
  • Girard City School District: Performance Index 83.0, 66% economically disadvantaged
  • Clay Local: Performance Index 83.2, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Waterloo Local: Performance Index 83.3, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Stryker Local: Performance Index 83.3, 54% economically disadvantaged
  • Western Reserve Local: Performance Index 83.3, 59% economically disadvantaged
  • Carrollton Exempted Village: Performance Index 83.4, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Grand Valley Local: Performance Index 83.5, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Parma City: Performance Index 83.6, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Defiance City: Performance Index 83.8, 64% economically disadvantaged
  • Bellefontaine City: Performance Index 84.0, 57% economically disadvantaged
  • Miamisburg City: Performance Index 84.1, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • Lakewood Local: Performance Index 84.2, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • River View Local: Performance Index 84.2, 59% economically disadvantaged
  • Lowellville Local: Performance Index 84.2, 59% economically disadvantaged
  • Southeast Local: Performance Index 84.4, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Jefferson Area Local: Performance Index 84.5, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • Riverside Local: Performance Index 84.6, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Osnaburg Local: Performance Index 85.0, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Felicity-Franklin Local: Performance Index 85.2, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Montpelier Exempted Village: Performance Index 85.4, 54% economically disadvantaged
  • Fairfield City: Performance Index 85.4, 59% economically disadvantaged
  • Licking Heights Local: Performance Index 85.4, 61% economically disadvantaged
  • Coventry Local: Performance Index 85.5, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Paulding Exempted Village: Performance Index 85.6, 63% economically disadvantaged
  • Millcreek-West Unity Local: Performance Index 85.8, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Oberlin City Schools: Performance Index 85.9, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Ridgewood Local: Performance Index 86.1, 61% economically disadvantaged
  • Deer Park Community City: Performance Index 86.3, 56% economically disadvantaged
  • National Trail Local: Performance Index 86.4, 58% economically disadvantaged
  • Sandy Valley Local: Performance Index 86.6, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Union-Scioto Local: Performance Index 86.6, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Bright Local: Performance Index 86.7, 63% economically disadvantaged
  • Barnesville Exempted Village: Performance Index 87.0, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • North Olmsted City: Performance Index 87.0, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • New Philadelphia City: Performance Index 87.0, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Jackson City: Performance Index 87.0, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Western Brown Local: Performance Index 87.2, 62% economically disadvantaged
  • South Central Local: Performance Index 87.4, 57% economically disadvantaged
  • West Muskingum Local: Performance Index 87.8, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Southeastern Local: Performance Index 87.8, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Mississinawa Valley Local: Performance Index 88.2, 64% economically disadvantaged
  • Miami Trace Local: Performance Index 88.3, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Plymouth-Shiloh Local: Performance Index 88.3, 60% economically disadvantaged
  • Joseph Badger Local: Performance Index 88.9, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • Clark-Shawnee Local: Performance Index 88.9, 54% economically disadvantaged
  • Port Clinton City: Performance Index 88.9, 57% economically disadvantaged
  • Norwalk City: Performance Index 89.1, 58% economically disadvantaged
  • Edison Local: Performance Index 89.3, 58% economically disadvantaged
  • Georgetown Exempted Village: Performance Index 89.5, 56% economically disadvantaged
  • Eastern Local School District: Performance Index 89.5, 56% economically disadvantaged
  • Elida Local: Performance Index 89.6, 56% economically disadvantaged
  • Bethel-Tate Local: Performance Index 90.1, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • Hillsboro City: Performance Index 90.2, 62% economically disadvantaged
  • Goshen Local: Performance Index 90.4, 53% economically disadvantaged
  • Austintown Local Schools: Performance Index 90.4, 64% economically disadvantaged
  • Blanchester Local: Performance Index 90.6, 54% economically disadvantaged
  • Shelby City: Performance Index 91.3, 58% economically disadvantaged
  • Bristol Local: Performance Index 91.5, 57% economically disadvantaged
  • Conotton Valley Union Local: Performance Index 92.2, 54% economically disadvantaged
  • Indian Lake Local: Performance Index 92.8, 55% economically disadvantaged
  • Fort Frye Local: Performance Index 92.9, 52% economically disadvantaged
  • Leetonia Exempted Village School District: Performance Index 93.7, 62% economically disadvantaged
  • Boardman Local: Performance Index 94.1, 58% economically disadvantaged
  • Bloom-Vernon Local: Performance Index 97.4, 57% economically disadvantaged

Ohio's attainment measure tracks economic disadvantage at −0.846 statewide, so comparing this district to the state median would mostly be comparing its poverty rate to the state's. The middle tile is the comparison worth making, and the difference between them is what is left after one crude control.

It is not an effect of anything. Districts are not assigned to a poverty fifth at random, the fifths are wide, and a single year of a measure that barely moves cannot separate a school's contribution from its intake. See what this data can and cannot say.

Outcomes

Performance Index, 2022-2385.2
Performance Index, 2023-2486.3
Performance Index, 2024-2586.4
Progress, three-year average
The department's headline growth measure, and the one every correlation on this site uses.
 −0.11
Progress, one year
The same measure without the smoothing, also published.
 −0.12
Operating spending per enrolled pupil $20,540
Operating spending per need-weighted pupil $14,857
Economically disadvantaged (report card) 98.0%
English learners —
Students with disabilities 18.2%

The Performance Index is close to a fixed district trait across these three years, which is why a change in funding is unlikely to show up in it. Progress is the measure that moves. Both are 2024-25; the spending figures are FY2025.

Both growth measures point the same way here (−0.11 over three years, −0.12 over one). Statewide the two correlate at 0.90, and of the 534 districts printing a non-zero value on both, 44 point opposite ways — none of them with both magnitudes above 0.05. This site uses the three-year figure throughout, because a single year of value-added is noisy enough that the department smooths it deliberately.

The two economically-disadvantaged shares on this page differ: the report card's is top-coded by community eligibility, the profile report's (57.8%) is not.

Two mistakes this page is built to prevent

Reading a correlation with poverty as a correlation with something elseEconomic disadvantage explains Ohio's attainment measure at −0.846. Most other district-level variables are that one in disguise — including, sharply, guarantee status. Every association statewide, with its controlled figure beside it.
Quoting a per-pupil number without its denominatorThe two spending figures above share a numerator. The department's divides by a need-weighted count; the other divides by headcount. Against an outcome that is itself composition-driven, the first is substantially a composition proxy — statewide the same numerator gives −0.004 one way and −0.355 the other.

Nothing on this page is causal, and nothing on it is a judgment about this district's schools. What it funds is on the dashboard; what it actually collected and spent is in its finances.