Como-Pickton CISD vs Mesick Consolidated Schools
TX · 770 students • MI · 532 students • fiscal year 2024 • swap sides
In one line
- Mesick Consolidated Schools spends 4% more per student than Como-Pickton CISD after adjusting for local price levels.
- Mesick Consolidated Schools directs 2 more cents of every operating dollar to instruction than Como-Pickton CISD.
- Mesick Consolidated Schools is far more dependent on local property taxes (32% of revenue vs 18%), which ties its budget more tightly to local property values.
- Como-Pickton CISD reports fewer students per teacher (11.8 vs 14.8). This is a staffing ratio, not an average class size.
Are these even comparable?
Establish the shape of each district before reading a single dollar figure.
| Como-Pickton CISD | Mesick Consolidated Schools | |
|---|---|---|
| Students enrolled | 770 | 532 |
| Schools | 1 | 2 |
| Grades served | PK–12 | K–12 |
| Setting | Rural | Rural |
| County | Hopkins County | Wexford County |
| State | TX | MI |
| Local price level (US = 100) BEA Regional Price Parity. Above 100 means a dollar buys less here than the national average. | 97.1 | 96.2 |
The headline dollar
Current operating spending per student, shown three ways. The first is what each district reports. The second and third are the honest ones for comparison.
| Como-Pickton CISD | Mesick Consolidated Schools | |
|---|---|---|
| Per student, as reported | $15,450 | $15,948 |
| Per student, price-adjusted Divided by the local price level, so both figures are in the same money. | $15,918 | $16,575 |
| Per student, price-adjusted, excluding transport Transportation provision varies enormously between districts and states. Removing it compares the parts both districts actually do. | $15,479 | $15,757 |
| Capital spending per student Buildings and land, reported separately and never folded into the operating figures above. It is lumpy: a district mid-build looks expensive for two years. | Locked | Locked |
Como-Pickton CISD
Mesick Consolidated Schools
Where the money comes from
The funding mix determines how exposed a district is to local property values, to state politics, and to federal programmes ending.
Como-Pickton CISD
- Local 17.7% Locked
- State 66.6% Locked
- Federal 15.7% Locked
Mesick Consolidated Schools
- Local 31.6% Locked
- State 54.7% Locked
- Federal 13.7% Locked
| Como-Pickton CISD | Mesick Consolidated Schools | |
|---|---|---|
| Local share of revenue Mostly property tax. A high share means school budgets track local property values, up and down. | 17.7% | 31.6% |
| State share of revenue | 66.6% | 54.7% |
| Federal share of revenue | 15.7% | 13.7% |
| Total revenue | Locked | Locked |
How TX funds its districts
Foundation School Program: a basic allotment per pupil in weighted average daily attendance, with recapture from property-wealthy districts.
How MI funds its districts
Proposal A foundation allowance: a per-pupil grant largely funded by the state, with limited local enhancement.
Where the money goes
The same slices in the same order for both districts, plus the differences by function — because two pie charts side by side hide exactly the thing you want to see.
Como-Pickton CISD
- Instruction 59.8% Locked
- Instructional staff support 1.4% Locked
- Student support 2.5% Locked
- Operations & maintenance 16.9% Locked
- Transportation 2.8% Locked
- Food service 4.5% Locked
- School administration 4.1% Locked
- District administration 3.5% Locked
- Other support 3.6% Locked
- Other current 4.6% Locked
Mesick Consolidated Schools
- Instruction 62.5% Locked
- Instructional staff support 1.1% Locked
- Student support 1.5% Locked
- Operations & maintenance 10.4% Locked
- Transportation 4.9% Locked
- Food service 6.2% Locked
- School administration 5.5% Locked
- District administration 4.1% Locked
- Other support 3.7% Locked
- Other current 6.2% Locked
What is actually different
Share of each district's operating dollar, Como-Pickton CISD minus Mesick Consolidated Schools. Two pie charts side by side are almost impossible to read against each other; this is the same data as one chart.
| Como-Pickton CISD | Mesick Consolidated Schools | |
|---|---|---|
| Cents of each operating dollar reaching classrooms Instruction plus instructional staff support, as a share of current spending. | 61.2% | 63.6% |
| Administration share District office plus school administration. | 7.7% | 9.6% |
| Transportation share | 2.8% | 4.9% |
What the money buys
Staffing levels are the most direct thing a budget converts into.
| Como-Pickton CISD | Mesick Consolidated Schools | |
|---|---|---|
| Students per teacher This is a staffing ratio: total enrolment divided by teaching staff. It is NOT average class size, which no national source collects. Actual classes are larger than this number in every district. | 11.8 | 14.8 |
| Students per counsellor | Locked | Locked |
| Students per administrator | Locked | Locked |
| Total salaries All staff, not teachers alone. The federal survey does not separate teacher pay. | Locked | Locked |
Who they serve
The answer to "but they serve different kids" — which is usually a fair objection.
| Como-Pickton CISD | Mesick Consolidated Schools | |
|---|---|---|
| Child poverty rate Census SAIPE estimate of children aged 5–17 in poverty within the district boundary. Used instead of free-lunch eligibility, which community eligibility has made unusable for comparison. | 17.7% | 17.9% |
| English learners | 0 | 0 |
| Students with disabilities | 0 | 0 |
| Enrolment change, 5 years | +5.2% | -10.6% |
Results, and results for the money
Stability and risk
The homebuyer’s real question: what is likely to change after I move in?
Como-Pickton CISD
No stability flags raised.
Mesick Consolidated Schools
- Declining enrollment Enrolment fell more than 5% over five years. Enrolment decline is the single best predictor of school closures and programme cuts.
| Como-Pickton CISD | Mesick Consolidated Schools | |
|---|---|---|
| Enrolment change, 5 years | +5.2% | -10.6% |
| Long-term debt per student | Locked | Locked |
| Debt service share of spending | Locked | Locked |
Enrolling a child
Is a seat at your zoned school guaranteed?
Como-Pickton CISD
We have no such statement from this district — which is not the same as a promise that your zoned school has room. Most districts never publish the policy in either direction, and we have read only a fraction of the ones that do. Ask the school office directly whether your address’s school is enrolling at your child’s grade level before you sign anything.
Mesick Consolidated Schools
We have no such statement from this district — which is not the same as a promise that your zoned school has room. Most districts never publish the policy in either direction, and we have read only a fraction of the ones that do. Ask the school office directly whether your address’s school is enrolling at your child’s grade level before you sign anything.
- This is the district’s own published wording, not our summary of it. Policies are rewritten between enrolment seasons and a page can be out of date the day after we read it — the school office is the only authority on whether a particular grade at a particular school is full right now.
- A warning here is about capacity, not about your address. It does not mean your child will be moved; it means the district has told you in writing that it may move them.
Comparability notes
- Cross-state comparison. Dollars below are shown both as reported and adjusted to a common price level, because a dollar buys different amounts of teacher in TX and MI.
- At least one district sits outside a metro area with its own published price index, so its cost adjustment uses the statewide index. That is a coarser adjustment.
What these numbers are, exactly
- Finance: US Census Bureau Annual Survey of School System Finances (F-33), fiscal year 2024.
- Enrolment, staffing and directory: NCES Common Core of Data via the Urban Institute Education Data Portal, 2024.
- Child poverty: Census SAIPE school-district estimates, 2024.
- Price levels: BEA Regional Price Parities, 2024.
- Districts self-report to the F-33 survey. States differ in what they count as an operating expense, and several pay teacher pensions centrally so that cost never appears in a district’s books. No arithmetic fixes that; we name it instead.
- Property tax basis and borrowing: the same F-33 filing, revenue codes T06 and T02 and the long-term debt schedule (_19H, _21F, _31F, _41F).
Who decides, and what it costs you
Every band above this one asks what a district spends. This one asks who chose to.
Como-Pickton CISD
The district levies its own school tax
This district raises property tax in its own name. Who sets the rate varies by state — an elected board in some, a public vote in others — but the levy is the school system’s own, and it is the part of a tax bill that school politics moves most directly.
Mesick Consolidated Schools
The district levies its own school tax
This district raises property tax in its own name. Who sets the rate varies by state — an elected board in some, a public vote in others — but the levy is the school system’s own, and it is the part of a tax bill that school politics moves most directly.
| Como-Pickton CISD | Mesick Consolidated Schools | |
|---|---|---|
| School property tax levied, per student Only for districts that levy in their own name. Blank where the county or town levies instead — see the cards above, and read the next row. | $1,901 | $2,735 |
| Appropriated by the county or town, per student What the parent government handed the schools, for dependent systems. This is a general appropriation, not solely property tax. | — | — |
| Property tax as a share of all revenue How much of the budget rides on local property values, and therefore on local votes. | 11.4% | 15.0% |
| Long-term debt already owed, per student The balance at the end of the year, for scale. Repaid over decades, so it is a commitment made by earlier boards rather than a bill arriving now. | Locked | Locked |
| Debt service as a share of spending Interest plus principal repaid this year, against total spending. This is the part of the debt that is being paid now, out of money that would otherwise reach a classroom. | Locked | Locked |
| New long-term debt issued, per student Money borrowed during fiscal year 2024, as reported to the federal survey. What this figure does and does not tell you is set out under the table. | $12,831 | $0 |
- Mesick Consolidated Schools: issued no new long-term debt in fiscal year 2024. That is a reported zero, not a gap in the data.
- A figure in the borrowing row is not a bond voters approved. The federal survey records debt issued, and that includes refinancing existing debt at a new rate — which changes nothing about what a district owes — as well as certificates of participation and lease-revenue debt, which in many states a board can issue with no referendum at all. To find out what was actually on a ballot, check the county election office.
- Debt is repaid over decades. A large balance per student is a commitment made by earlier boards and earlier voters, not a bill arriving this year. The debt service row above it is the part being paid now.
Who sits on the board
Mesick Consolidated Schools board of education
- Sally Flatman — President
- Eric Spencer — Vice President
- Craig Gabier — Secretary
- Ashlee McCormick — Treasurer
- Todd Altman — Trustee
- William Sexton — Trustee
- Amber Vranish — Trustee
Read from the district’s own board page on 2026-08-24. Boards change; the district’s page is the current record, not ours.
Funding measures on the ballot
Como-Pickton CISD
$29.5M approved by voters in a single measure.
| Election | Measure | Amount | Yes | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-07 | Bond · Prop. A Educational Center |
$29.5M | 63.1% | Passed |
From the state’s own election results file. Latest election on record: 2026-05-02.
What this state publishes: Bond elections only. Texas districts also ask voters to raise the maintenance-and-operations tax rate, and the Bond Review Board does not record those.
Mesick Consolidated Schools
We have not read MI’s election results, so this column is empty because of us and not because of Mesick Consolidated Schools. Whether it has asked its voters for money is a question its county election office can answer and we cannot, yet.
- A vote share is not an outcome. What it takes to carry varies by state and by measure — in some states a bond needs a supermajority and a minimum turnout while a levy on the same ballot needs half, so a clear majority can still lose. Every outcome shown here is copied from the state’s own results file, and the rule that applied is stated with the coverage above. Where that file stated no outcome we show the vote share and no verdict, rather than working one out from the percentage.
- These are the measures a district put to its voters, not its whole tax bill. A property tax bill also carries county, city and state levies that have nothing to do with schools, and in most states a school board can issue some kinds of debt with no vote at all.
Unlock the full comparison of Como-Pickton CISD and Mesick Consolidated Schools
The verdict, the headline dollar, the funding shares, who is served and every comparability caveat are free above, and stay free. What is behind the lock is the detail you would want before acting on any of it:
- capital spending per student
- total revenue and the funding mix in dollars
- the ten-line per-student breakdown of where the money goes
- counsellor and administrator ratios, and the total salary bill
- the debt behind the risk flags — per student, and as a share of spending
$19 once for this pair, or $7 a month for every district in the country.
One payment, no account to create. Buy on the web and the iPhone app unlocks with the same receipt.
Compare something else
Como-Pickton CISD on its own · Mesick Consolidated Schools on its own