Statistically it is popular, but personally I only know of one, my cousin’s little girl who’s almost 2. As far as I know they’ve never encountered another little [name_f]Eleanor[/name_f] either.
Another good point is that US statistics cover a LOT of babies - you’re best off to look at your state individually for a more accurate perception - ie; in [name_f]Alabama[/name_f], the name [name_f]Mary[/name_f], [name_f]Journee[/name_f], [name_f]Emersyn[/name_f] and [name_f]Margaret[/name_f] rank at #11, #58, #77 and #82 respectively but nationally rank at #126, #207, #147 and #127.
Finally, I’d like to point out that names now aren’t given to as many babies as they once were in the 80s or even 90s!
Like over a 50 year span, names ranking at #32 looked like this;
1968 - [name_f]Sharon[/name_f] - 10,339 births
1978 - [name_f]Tiffany[/name_f] - 7,700 births
1988 - [name_u]Kelly[/name_u] - 8,911 births
1998 - [name_f]Julia[/name_f] - 8,328 births
2008 - [name_u]Allison[/name_u] - 6,239 births
2018 - [name_f]Eleanor[/name_f] - 5,694 births.
In 50 years the number of babies given the name ranked at #32 has dropped by nearly half, so names really aren’t as ubiquitous as they once were, even in the top 100.
Another way to look at it is that [name_f]Eleanor[/name_f] accounted for 0.3084% of ALL births in the US last year. Not even 1% makes it highly unlikely that she’d encounter anymore than one, possibly.
I think you should be safe.
ETA: just saw you said you checked your state. 17 is high, but 100 babies isn’t at all. Most states have thousands of classrooms. 100 babies would be pretty well dispersed across your population.