Ridgewood Local
- IRN
- 046474
- County
- Coshocton
- Funding
- on formula
- Millage
- at the 20-mill floor
- Disadvantaged
- 60.6% FY2024
Where the state aid comes from Contents
This district is funded by the formula, so an increase in its computed base cost reaches it in full — unlike the 294 districts held on the guarantee.
- 32% of voted millage reduced away — H.B. 920's reduction factors have rolled back that much of what voters approved, so what a levy raises here is not what the ballot said it would.
- Enrollment down 2.2% FY2024→FY2026 — Its aid falls with it, because this district is on the formula — the next card shows by how much.
What a year of enrollment is worth here Contents
| Enrollment year | Enrolled ADM | State aid at that ADM |
|---|---|---|
| FY2024 | 1,170 | $9,483,124 |
| FY2025 | 1,161 | $9,412,258 |
| FY2026 — the model's own | 1,144 | $9,271,602 |
Moving from FY2025 to FY2026 enrollment cost this district 17 pupils and −$140,656 , or −$122.94 per pupil.
These are not published FY2025 and FY2026 funding totals — the department publishes one calculator at a time and this site holds the FY2027 one, so no FY2025 payment figure exists here to show. Every row is the FY2027 formula held fixed and run at that year's enrolled ADM, which isolates the enrollment channel: two years of published totals could not, because the formula moved between them too.
The last row's enrollment is partly a departmental estimate. The FY2027 calculator is published before FY2026 closes, so FY2026 enrolled ADM is not a settled count — and it is the row the model's own answer sits on. Every figure on this page that divides by the current year inherits that, which is a different kind of uncertainty from the band below: the band is a forecast and says so, this is a published number that is not final.
This card holds the formula fixed and moves enrollment. The scenario for this district does the opposite — it holds enrollment at published FY2026 and moves the formula. The two were built a phase apart and neither said the other existed, which left one district's counterfactual on one route and one district's projection on another with no way to get between them.
Carried forward Contents
The values
- FY2024: $9,483,124 at published enrollment — exact
- FY2025: $9,412,258 at published enrollment — exact
- FY2026: $9,271,602 at published enrollment — exact
- FY2027: $8,976,422 – $9,421,689, central $9,196,361
- FY2028: $8,832,043 – $9,529,139, central $9,173,972
- FY2029: $8,725,081 – $9,631,873, central $9,167,272
- FY2030: $8,634,944 – $9,728,152, central $9,165,263
- FY2031: $8,554,420 – $9,818,434, central $9,164,661
- FY2032: $8,480,409 – $9,903,731, central $9,164,480
At FY2032 enrollment this district's aid is somewhere between $8,480,409 and $9,903,731. The range, not the line, is the finding. The band is the cross-sectional spread of district enrollment growth, not this district's own history — three observations cannot give that.
The band is centered high, on the average district. The width above is checked and holds; the level is a separate question and the answer is not zero. Backtested against the Census panel, the average district's forecast 6 years out ran +0.0117 in logs — about 1.2% over — against targets before the pandemic school closures, and +0.0237 at the same 6 years over every forecast the panel scores, closures included. That is a mean over districts and not a figure for this one: it is the same pair wherever this card draws a band, and nothing in the backtest says which side of it this district falls on. Neither the band above nor the line through it is adjusted for either number — both populations are drawn at every horizon on the method page.
“Current law” stops at FY2027. Three sections of R.C. 3317 — base cost, local capacity and targeted assistance — apply only for FY2026 and FY2027 by their own terms, and forty divisions of five more hand their values to a General Assembly that has not met. FY2032 here is this formula continued unchanged, which is the only tractable assumption and is not a forecast of what the law will say.
Why base cost is $8,323 per pupil Contents
The largest part is teachers, at 57%: $5,476,216 of $9,643,331. Base cost is not a rate the state sets. It is assembled for each district from staffing ratios written into R.C. 3317.011, applied to this district's own enrollment and priced at statewide average salaries. 48 funded classroom teachers and 8 special teachers, across 1,159 pupils.
The values
- Teachers (R.C. 3317.011(D)): $5,476,216, 56.8% of base cost
- Student support (R.C. 3317.011(E)): $1,124,300, 11.7% of base cost
- District leadership (R.C. 3317.011(F)): $780,111, 8.1% of base cost
- Building leadership and operation (R.C. 3317.011(G)): $2,040,008, 21.2% of base cost
- Athletic co-curricular (R.C. 3317.011(H)): $222,696, 2.3% of base cost
| Element | Amount |
|---|---|
| A Teachers R.C. 3317.011(D) | $5,476,216 |
| A1 Classroom teachers One per 20 pupils in kindergarten, 23 in grades 1–3, 25 in grades 4–8, 27 in grades 9–12, and 18 in career-technical. |
$4,607,924 |
| A2 Special teachers Art, music and physical education, at one per 150 pupils. |
$741,571 |
| A3 Substitutes | $29,070 |
| A4 Professional development Four days against a 180-day year. |
$97,650 |
| B Student support R.C. 3317.011(E) | $1,124,300 |
| B1 Guidance counselors | $96,859 |
| B2 Librarians and media staff | $119,557 |
| B3 Wellness and success staff | $484,296 |
| B4 Academic co-curricular | $55,717 |
| B5 Safety and security | $41,942 |
| B6 Supplies and academic content | $282,480 |
| B7 Student technology | $43,448 |
| C District leadership R.C. 3317.011(F) | $780,111 |
| C1 Superintendent The only price in the formula that varies with district size: $160,000 above 4,000 pupils, $80,000 below 500, interpolated between. |
$127,415 |
| C2 Treasurer | $102,032 |
| C3 Other administrators Priced at 82.8% of the superintendent band rather than looked up, so a change to that band moves this too. |
$213,325 |
| C4 Fiscal support | $149,601 |
| C5 EMIS support | $82,081 |
| C6 Leadership support | $69,739 |
| C7 Information technology center | $35,917 |
| D Building leadership and operation R.C. 3317.011(G) | $2,040,008 |
| D1 Building leadership Priced at 79.38% of the superintendent band. |
$267,840 |
| D2 Building leadership support | $171,018 |
| D3 Building operation | $1,601,150 |
| E Athletic co-curricular R.C. 3317.011(H) | $222,696 |
| Aggregate base cost | $9,643,331 |
These figures are computed here, not quoted. Every other per-district number on this site is the department's published model passed through; this one is the site's own implementation of the statute running against this district's grade bands. The department publishes its own aggregate for the same district — $9,643,332 — and the two differ by $0.58, which is what twenty-two elements each rounded at the point the department rounds them adds up to. The reproduction is checked across all 609 districts before this site is allowed to build, and the method page sets out how it is done.
What the state actually pays toward this is the state share, not the whole of it: $4,674,207 of the $9,643,332 above. The rest is charged to local capacity, which is 60% assessed valuation. Changing the price inputs is the lever the cost input refresh scenario perturbs; H.B. 96 held them at FY2022 through FY2027.
Those two figures do not divide into the state share percentage, and putting them in one sentence invites exactly that. They are computed on different pupil counts — the share is paid on the current year's ADM, the base cost above is built on the enrolled ADM, and the two differ for 499 of Ohio's 609 districts. Divide them anyway and 125 districts come out below the statutory 10% minimum, as low as 6.7%, every one of them a district the model already flags as being at that minimum. How Ohio intends the floor to apply across the two counts is not something this site has established, so it says only that the ratio is not the percentage.
The categorical half, in its six parts Contents
The values
- Targeted assistance: $2,981,549, 64.9% of this district's categoricals
- Special education: $670,465, 14.6% of this district's categoricals
- Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid: $792,322, 17.2% of this district's categoricals
- Career-technical education: $90,184, 2.0% of this district's categoricals
- Gifted: $62,875, 1.4% of this district's categoricals
- English learners: $0. This district receives none.
| Program | Amount |
|---|---|
| Targeted assistance Equalization for low-valuation districts. Zero once a district has enough. | $2,981,549 |
| Special education Six weighted categories of disability, spanning a factor of sixteen. | $670,465 |
| Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid Two poverty counts blended, indexed on the state's, and squared. | $792,322 |
| Career-technical education Five weights against a base cost 20% above the one the rest of the plan uses. | $90,184 |
| Gifted Mostly staffing units, with a floor 370 districts sit on. | $62,875 |
| English learners Three weights that descend as need persists, alone among the six. | $0 |
| Total categorical funding | $4,597,395 |
50% of this district's formula aid is categorical rather than base cost — $4,597,395 against $4,674,207. Its largest single program is Targeted assistance at $2,981,549.
Special education, by category Contents
| Category | Weight | Pupils | Aid | Share of pupils | Share of aid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category 1 | 0.2435 | 12 | $12,233 | 8.8% | 1.8% |
| Category 2 | 0.6179 | 96 | $239,532 | 67.8% | 35.7% |
| Category 3 | 1.4845 | 8 | $46,993 | 5.5% | 7.0% |
| Category 4 | 1.9812 | 1 | $8,015 | 0.7% | 1.2% |
| Category 5 | 2.6830 | 5 | $54,269 | 3.5% | 8.1% |
| Category 6 | 3.9554 | 19 | $309,424 | 13.7% | 46.2% |
| All categories | — | 141 | $670,465 | 100.0% | 100.0% |
The weight is what the category multiplies: a Category 6 pupil generates 3.9554 times the statewide average base cost per pupil and a Category 1 pupil 0.2435 times it — a range of sixteen. Category assignment is not an administrative detail here, it is most of the money. This district's largest is Category 6 at $309,424, which is 46% of its special education aid from 14% of its special education pupils.
Targeted assistance, in its two tiers Contents
| Step | Value | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Assessed valuation | $232,187,004 | Weighted 60% in the wealth measure. |
| Federal adjusted gross income | $241,202,179 | The other 40%. Wealth here is property and income. |
| Weighted wealth | $235,793,074 | The blend of the two. |
| Capacity index | 1.6631 | The median district's total wealth over this one's. Above 1 is poorer. |
| Capacity amount | $1,250,866 | 0.8% of the $156,358,233 shortfall. |
| Wealth per resident pupil | $210,826 | Weighted wealth over 1,118 resident pupils — 26 fewer than it enrolls. |
| Wealth index | 1.3125 | $276,709 over that. Below 0.8 the tier pays nothing. |
| Wealth amount | $1,730,683 | Paid on its 1,144 enrolled pupils, not the resident count the rate was measured against. |
| Targeted assistance | $2,981,549 | The two tiers, added. |
Both tiers pay here, 42% capacity and 58% wealth. Statewide the split is 24% and 76%.
Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid, step by step Contents
| Step | Value | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Economically disadvantaged ADM | 1,144 | FY2025. Weighted 65%. |
| Directly certified ADM | 412 | FY2026, weighted 35% — an administrative count, 36% of the disadvantaged one here. A year behind the weights beside it: the model cannot use a count the year it prices has not produced. |
| Blended count | 888 | The 65/35 mix. This is the number the money is paid on. |
| As a share of enrollment | 77.58% | Against a statewide 53.34%. |
| Index | 2.1154 | That share over the state's, squared — 1.4544 before squaring. |
| Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid | $792,322 | $422 per weighted pupil, scaled by the index. |
The squaring is the program. A district at twice the state's poverty rate scores four times the index, not twice — so DPIA is convex, and $525M distributed on a curve like that concentrates far more sharply than a per-pupil rate would. This district is above the state's rate, so the squaring works in its favor: its index is 2.12 where a linear one would be 1.45.
Gifted: two payments and three kinds of unit Contents
| Component | Units | Earned | Amount | What it is |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identification | — | — | $7,899 | $24 per K-6 pupil, after the state share. |
| Referral | — | — | $1,404 | $2.50 per enrolled pupil — a different denominator, one line away. |
| Coordinator | 0.5000 | 0.3467 | $21,051 | $85,776 each — one per 3,300 pupils, floored at 0.5 and capped at 8. Paid the floor, not its count. |
| Intervention specialist, K-8 | 0.4533 | 0.4533 | $19,887 | $89,378 each — one per 140 identified gifted pupils, floored at 0.3. Paid the cap, not its count. |
| Intervention specialist, 9-12 | 0.3179 | 0.3179 | $12,633 | $80,974 each — the same, priced $8,404 lower. |
| Gifted | — | — | $62,875 | 85% of it is units. |
One of this district's three unit entitlements is a floor rather than an earned amount — its own counts would buy less. That is deliberate: units buy people, and half a coordinator is already the smallest thing a small district can be funded for. It also means this part of its gifted money does not move when its gifted enrollment does. Statewide, 370 districts sit on the half-coordinator floor — three-fifths of Ohio — so for most of the state the coordinator line is a minimum rather than a measurement.
Career-technical education, by category Contents
| Category | Weight | FTE | Aid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category 1 | 0.6230 | 26.24 | $79,079 |
| Category 5 | 0.1570 | 8.18 | $6,210 |
| Associated services | 0.0294 | 34.42 | $4,895 |
| Career-technical education | — | 34.42 | $90,184 |
These weights multiply a career-technical base cost of $9,856 per pupil, not the $8,242 the rest of the plan uses — 20% higher before any weight is applied. A Category 1 CTE pupil generates $6,140 where the same weight against the general base would give $5,135. Ohio's weights are not a single scale, and reading them as one understates this program by a fifth.
The counts are frozen at FY2021. The department's own column header reads Category 1 Career Tech FTE-FY21, so the FTE column above is enrollment as it stood six years before the year being funded, while the base cost it is multiplied against is built on a rolling three-year average ending FY2026. A district that has opened or closed a program since 2021 is funded for the one it had then.
These six were one number on this page until recently — a residual, computed as core foundation funding less the of base cost. The residual is exact and it cannot be interrogated, which matters because the programs move for opposite reasons: targeted assistance rises as a district gets poorer in property, DPIA as its pupils get poorer. A total that adds them describes neither.
Position among Ohio's 609 districts Contents
Ridgewood Local stands at the 15th percentile on tax base per pupil and the 32nd on operating spending. The middle half of Ohio's districts is the shaded box, the line inside it is the median, and the whiskers reach the last district within one and a half times the box's width. Anything drawn past them is its own district. The colored rule is this one.
The values
- Northeastern Local: $506,811
- Buckeye Local: $511,797
- Jefferson Township Local: $513,389
- Lakewood Local: $528,803
- Buckeye Valley Local: $532,895
- Walnut Township Local: $546,364
- Independence Local: $546,691
- Revere Local: $550,377
- East Knox Local: $578,195
- Westlake City: $584,507
- Southeast Local: $586,129
- East Holmes Local: $588,436
- West Geauga Local: $604,523
- Cuyahoga Heights Local: $617,663
- Cardinal Local: $624,683
- Port Clinton City: $640,112
- Beachwood City: $649,468
- Orange City: $652,428
- Hillsdale Local: $656,876
- Buckeye Central Local: $687,901
- Harrison Hills City: $716,513
- Noble Local: $766,177
- Switzerland of Ohio Local: $783,710
- Indian Hill Exempted Village: $850,898
- Conotton Valley Union Local: $882,361
- Danbury Local: $1,350,078
The values
- Rock Hill Local: $22,397
- Conotton Valley Union Local: $22,483
- Western Local: $22,550
- New Miami Local: $22,625
- Trimble Local: $22,753
- Oberlin City Schools: $22,844
- Independence Local: $22,997
- Warrensville Heights City: $23,004
- Chagrin Falls Exempted Village: $23,082
- Akron City: $23,093
- Buckeye Central Local: $23,183
- Dayton City: $23,209
- Fayette Local: $23,256
- Euclid City: $23,415
- Northridge Local: $23,422
- Mansfield City: $23,557
- Sebring Local: $23,574
- Youngstown City: $23,605
- Vanlue Local: $23,907
- Hardin Northern Local: $24,086
- Danbury Local: $24,174
- Lordstown Local: $24,247
- Cuyahoga Heights Local: $24,428
- Noble Local: $24,463
- Lorain City: $24,854
- Columbus City School District: $25,136
- Cleveland Municipal: $25,594
- New Boston Local: $25,694
- Bedford City: $26,190
- Cleveland Heights-University Heights City: $27,195
- Shaker Heights City: $27,300
- Switzerland of Ohio Local: $28,230
- Beachwood City: $28,244
- Orange City: $28,774
- Bloomfield-Mespo Local: $34,100
- Jefferson Township Local: $36,163
- East Cleveland City School District: $37,449
Both figures are the District Profile Report's, per enrolled ADM — the pupils this district teaches. The property tax page carries a second operating figure, from the report card, a year later and per unweighted ADM; the two are neither the same year nor the same denominator and do not reconcile by arithmetic. Which count each figure on that page divides by is tabulated there.
This card places the district against all 609 at once, which is the question "is this unusual". The other question — "unusual compared to whom" — is the comparison table, which puts this district's figures beside any one other district's.
Outside the formula Contents
These are paid on top of formula aid and the guarantee does not hold a district at them. Every payment above this card is foundation funding, which is protected; this is not.
| Payment | Amount | How it is decided |
|---|---|---|
| Base funding supplement | $45,765 | $40 a pupil. Every district, no test of any kind. |
| Performance supplement | $59,494 | $13 a pupil per rating point, on 4.0 — the greater of its 4.0-star overall rating and its 4.0 progress rating. $52 a pupil. |
| Enrollment growth supplement | $0 | Its enrollment fell 4.57% over three years. This pays only for growth. |
| Outside the formula | $105,259 | Not held by the guarantee. |
Transportation Contents
| Step | Value | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Weighted riders | 523 | 503 public, 10 non-public counted 2.0 times. |
| Per-rider base | $699,343 | $1,337.18 a weighted rider. |
| Per-mile base | $1,080,316 | $6.867 a bus mile across a 180-day year. |
| School bus payment | $540,158 | The greater of the two — miles, here — at a state share of 50.0%. |
| Efficiency supplement | $54,934 | Up to 15% more for filling buses. Its index is 1.3390. |
| Density supplement | $146,446 | Paid for sparseness: 3.4 riders a square mile against the 28 this counts down from. |
| Transportation | $741,539 | The payments and supplements, added. |
| Special education transportation | $18,594 | Its reported cost at the same state share — then multiplied by 0.91746. |
That last factor is not a rate. A proration below one means the appropriation did not cover what the formula computed, so every district's special education transportation was scaled down to fit. This district was computed $20,267 and paid $18,594 — $1,673 short. The published figure is not what it was owed; it is what there was to divide.
Two things here have no counterpart in the formula. The state share floor is 50% against the formula's 10%, so for most of Ohio local capacity does not determine transportation aid at all — the state equalizes getting to school far harder than it equalizes what happens there. And the two supplements reward opposite things: one pays for filling buses, the other for having too few children per square mile to fill them.
Preschool special education Contents
| Category | Weight, halved | Pupils | Aid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category 1 | 0.1218 | 15.73 | $68,466 |
| Category 2 | 0.3090 | 3.31 | $16,816 |
| Category 3 | 0.7423 | 2.00 | $13,565 |
| Category 5 | 1.3415 | 2.00 | $18,261 |
| Category 6 | 1.9777 | 6.42 | $74,639 |
| Preschool special education | — | 29.46 | $191,747 |
Each pupil generates a flat $4,000 whatever their category, plus the school-age weight at half against the average base cost. Here the flat part is $114,148 — 60% of the total — and it is the one payment in Ohio's school funding the state share does not reduce. For most of what this program pays, the wealthiest district and the poorest are funded identically.
That also flattens the weights. The same six make school-age special education steeply top-heavy — Category 6 is 15% of the pupils and 48% of the money — and here, halved and sitting on a flat $4,000, they produce something close to parity.
And this program is over its appropriation. Its sheet is the one place in the calculator that shows what a proration is, because it carries the appropriation limit in a cell beside the factor: $147,500,000. At the stated factor of 0.96854448 the program totals $148,408,184 statewide — $908,184 over. This district was computed $197,974 and paid $191,747, $6,227 short. The calculator is a projection published before the fiscal year, so the factor is presumably recalibrated before payment; as published, the factor, the limit and the total do not agree.
The performance supplement is the only part of Ohio's school funding paid on a measured outcome rather than on pupils, categories or a tax base — and it runs against the grain of everything else in the formula. Sorted by poverty, the mean payment per pupil falls from $54.74 in the least-poor fifth of districts to $23.31 in the poorest, and the share qualifying falls from 91% to 49%. Ohio's attainment measures track intake, so a program keyed to them follows intake whatever its intent — which explains the gradient without removing it.
Across the biennium Contents
Two measures of the same district in the same years, because they do not agree and neither one is the figure. Total state support is what the district is paid before transfers. Foundation aid is base cost, the six categoricals and the guarantee — the part this site models, and the only part the scenario page can move or project.
| Measure | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2027 | FY2026 to FY2027 | FY2025 to FY2027 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total state support | $10,402,052 | $10,507,858 | $10,328,741 | −$179,117 | −$73,311 |
| Foundation aid only | $9,382,595 | $9,394,149 | $9,271,602 | −$122,547 | −$110,993 |
From the FY2026 model to the FY2027 model — the department's models of those years, not payments — total state support moves −1.7% and foundation aid −1.3%. On total state support that is the largest fall of 3 in Coshocton County, and the line that moved it most is foundation aid, at −$122,547. Every line, the phase-in and the county's other districts are on the Change tab.
The same steps for every district in Ohio, one provision at a time — the supplement H.B. 96 repealed, the new count in DPIA, reappraisal through local capacity and the phase-in — are on What changed.
The last column is the last year against the first. A two-year budget pays both of its years, so the biennium's whole departure from the year it is measured from is +$32,495 on total state support — each year counted against FY2025, not against the year before it.
What the change is made of
The five lines below sum to the total state support change exactly. The first is the whole of what this site's model computes; the other four are not modeled here at all.
| Line | FY2025 to FY2027 | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation aid | −$110,993 | Core foundation funding and the guarantee together. Zero for a district held at its base in every year. |
| Transportation | −$69,614 | Outside the foundation formula, and not moved by any lever on the scenario page. |
| Special education transportation | −$1,142 | Prorated against its appropriation, so it moves for reasons a district does not control. |
| Preschool special education | +$3,180 | Also prorated, and also outside the formula. |
| Supplements | +$105,259 | The formula transition supplement in both years, supplemental targeted assistance in FY2025 which H.B. 96 repealed, and the base funding and enrollment growth supplements it created. |
Against America Contents
| Measure | This district | Nationally | What it is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local share of revenue | 24.9% | 24th percentile | What DeRolph is a claim about: how much of this district's money its own community raises. |
| Revenue per pupil | $14,117 | 17th percentile | All sources, on the federal count. |
| Current spending per pupil | $11,694 | 18th percentile | What it spent, as the Bureau defines spending. |
Against 10,382 school districts in every state, on the Census Bureau's own definitions rather than on each state's. Every other figure on this site is Ohio describing itself, which can say what Ohio does and not whether it is unusual. Despite Ohio's reputation, this district is in the bottom third nationally for local reliance: most of its money comes from the state.
An ordinary Ohio district is well above the national middle, and the shift is largest for ordinary districts rather than extreme ones. Ohio's median district sits at the 66th national percentile on local share; its quarter-poorest sits at the national median.
These are not the figures above. They are FY2022 against the model's FY2027, and they divide by the federal fall membership rather than by Ohio's enrolled ADM. A revenue-per-pupil figure here and a spending-per-pupil figure elsewhere on this page are different quantities over different counts in different years, and subtracting one from the other would mean nothing.
What this page is not Contents
None of the figures above is money this district received. Every one of them is the FY2027 funding calculator's answer for it, published before the year it funds. What actually changed hands is on finances, taken from this district's own five-year forecast filing — audited actuals, on a different construction, in different years. Reading either as a check on the other is the mistake the two routes are kept apart to prevent.
And there is state money in neither. This district received $84,088 from the casino county student fund in FY2024. It is not an appropriation to the department, so no figure above computes it; it is booked outside the general fund, so no row on the finances route carries it either. It is on finances, in a card of its own.
None of this district's 3 buildings is designated for the traditional EdChoice scholarship in 2026-27. That is eligibility, not participation — nothing published says how many applied, or which district any scholarship was charged against. And it is not a charge on anything above: the scholarship is a funding unit of its own under R.C. 3317.022, computed beside this district's unit and paid directly, not deducted from it. Statewide, 513 buildings in 78 districts are designated.
This page divides by more than one pupil count. Base cost is built on 1,159 — a three-year average, because R.C. 3317.011 funds on the greater of that and the current year. The state share of it, and every categorical above, is paid on 1,144: the current year alone. Those are different numbers, as they are for 499 of Ohio's 609 districts. The corpus calls conflating them the single most common arithmetic error available in Ohio school finance, and the property tax page reconciles the two the Department of Taxation and the Department of Education each publish.
The position card below is two other years on a fourth count. Assessed valuation per pupil there is an FY2023 valuation and operating expenditure per pupil is FY2024 spending — two different years inside one card — and both divide by enrolled ADM FY2024, beside a model that funds FY2027. Finances shows FY2025 spending on the report card's unweighted headcount, and Outcome shows FY2025 spending on its need-weighted one. Subtracting any of them from any other produces a number that means nothing, which is why the site declares the denominator of every figure it draws, and why that declaration cannot check a sentence.
Every figure on this page is also a column in the district export, unrounded and one row per district. This page used to close with a thirteen-row table of the same numbers rounded, which was the better answer in the build where it was added and had become a restatement of ten figures already above it. If a fixed-shape table on every district was what you were reading, the CSV is where it went.