Kelleys Island Local
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.
- At the minimum state share — The formula computed a share below 10% and the statute raised it to 10%, so a change to the local capacity measure moves this district's aid by nothing until it is large enough to lift it off the floor. One of 138.
- Enrollment down 51.2% 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 | 7 | $286,811 |
| FY2025 | 5 | $199,174 |
| FY2026 — the model's own | 4 | $139,820 |
Moving from FY2025 to FY2026 enrollment cost this district 1 pupils and −$59,354 , or −$16,909.95 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: $286,811 at published enrollment — exact
- FY2025: $199,174 at published enrollment — exact
- FY2026: $139,820 at published enrollment — exact
- FY2027: $118,291 – $124,158, central $121,189
- FY2028: $112,008 – $120,849, central $116,344
- FY2029: $109,404 – $120,775, central $114,949
- FY2030: $107,908 – $121,570, central $114,535
- FY2031: $106,794 – $122,574, central $114,412
- FY2032: $105,837 – $123,601, central $114,375
At FY2032 enrollment this district's aid is somewhere between $105,837 and $123,601. 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 $371,449 per pupil Contents
The largest part is district leadership, at 35%: $683,262 of $1,945,154. 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. 0.22 funded classroom teachers and 6 special teachers, across 5 pupils.
The values
- Teachers (R.C. 3317.011(D)): $611,637, 31.4% of base cost
- Student support (R.C. 3317.011(E)): $584,101, 30.0% of base cost
- District leadership (R.C. 3317.011(F)): $683,262, 35.1% of base cost
- Building leadership and operation (R.C. 3317.011(G)): $65,147, 3.3% of base cost
- Athletic co-curricular (R.C. 3317.011(H)): $1,007, 0.1% of base cost
| Element | Amount |
|---|---|
| A Teachers R.C. 3317.011(D) | $611,637 |
| 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. |
$21,133 |
| A2 Special teachers Art, music and physical education, at one per 150 pupils. |
$576,351 |
| A3 Substitutes | $3,247 |
| A4 Professional development Four days against a 180-day year. |
$10,907 |
| B Student support R.C. 3317.011(E) | $584,101 |
| B1 Guidance counselors | $96,859 |
| B2 Librarians and media staff | $1,031 |
| B3 Wellness and success staff | $484,296 |
| B4 Academic co-curricular | $252 |
| B5 Safety and security | $190 |
| B6 Supplies and academic content | $1,277 |
| B7 Student technology | $196 |
| C District leadership R.C. 3317.011(F) | $683,262 |
| 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. |
$109,953 |
| C2 Treasurer | $86,753 |
| C3 Other administrators Priced at 82.8% of the superintendent band rather than looked up, so a change to that band moves this too. |
$184,973 |
| C4 Fiscal support | $149,601 |
| C5 EMIS support | $82,081 |
| C6 Leadership support | $69,739 |
| C7 Information technology center | $162 |
| D Building leadership and operation R.C. 3317.011(G) | $65,147 |
| D1 Building leadership Priced at 79.38% of the superintendent band. |
$904 |
| D2 Building leadership support | $57,006 |
| D3 Building operation | $7,237 |
| E Athletic co-curricular R.C. 3317.011(H) | $1,007 |
| Aggregate base cost | $1,945,154 |
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 — $1,945,154 — and the two differ by $0.28, 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: $130,379 of the $1,945,154 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: $0. This district receives none.
- Special education: $0. This district receives none.
- Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid: $33, 0.4% of this district's categoricals
- Career-technical education: $0. This district receives none.
- Gifted: $9,409, 99.6% 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. | $0 |
| Special education Six weighted categories of disability, spanning a factor of sixteen. | $0 |
| Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid Two poverty counts blended, indexed on the state's, and squared. | $33 |
| Career-technical education Five weights against a base cost 20% above the one the rest of the plan uses. | $0 |
| Gifted Mostly staffing units, with a floor 370 districts sit on. | $9,409 |
| English learners Three weights that descend as need persists, alone among the six. | $0 |
| Total categorical funding | $9,442 |
7% of this district's formula aid is categorical rather than base cost — $9,442 against $130,379. It receives no targeted assistance. That is the largest categorical program in Ohio and it is equalization: it goes to districts whose valuation per pupil is low enough to qualify, and this district's is not. 135 districts are in the same position, and their categorical money is made of something else entirely.
Targeted assistance, in its two tiers Contents
| Step | Value | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Assessed valuation | $130,730,285 | Weighted 60% in the wealth measure. |
| Federal adjusted gross income | $15,144,780 | The other 40%. Wealth here is property and income. |
| Weighted wealth | $84,496,083 | The blend of the two. |
| Capacity index | 4.6411 | The median district's total wealth over this one's. Above 1 is poorer. |
| Capacity amount | $0 | Below 200 pupils. The tier pays nothing at this size however far below the median the district's wealth falls. |
| Wealth per resident pupil | $15,335,042 | Weighted wealth over 6 resident pupils — 2 more than it enrolls. |
| Wealth index | 0.0180 | $276,709 over that. Below 0.8 the tier pays nothing. |
| Wealth amount | $0 | Its wealth per pupil is above 1.25 times the state median. |
| Targeted assistance | $0 | The two tiers, added. |
This district draws neither tier. 135 are in the same position, and it is not a statement about their pupils — targeted assistance measures the tax base.
Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid, step by step Contents
| Step | Value | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Economically disadvantaged ADM | 0 | FY2025. Weighted 65%. |
| Directly certified ADM | 2 | FY2026, weighted 35% — an administrative count, smaller almost everywhere. A year behind the weights beside it: the model cannot use a count the year it prices has not produced. |
| Blended count | 1 | The 65/35 mix. This is the number the money is paid on. |
| As a share of enrollment | 18.52% | Against a statewide 53.34%. |
| Index | 0.1205 | That share over the state's, squared — 0.3472 before squaring. |
| Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid | $33 | $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 below the state's rate, so the squaring works against it: its index is 0.12 where a linear one would be 0.35.
Gifted: two payments and three kinds of unit Contents
| Component | Units | Earned | Amount | What it is |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identification | — | — | $8 | $24 per K-6 pupil, after the state share. |
| Referral | — | — | $1 | $2.50 per enrolled pupil — a different denominator, one line away. |
| Coordinator | 0.5000 | 0.0011 | $4,289 | $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 | 0.3000 | 0.0000 | $2,681 | $89,378 each — one per 140 identified gifted pupils, floored at 0.3. Paid the floor, not its count. |
| Intervention specialist, 9-12 | 0.3000 | 0.0000 | $2,429 | $80,974 each — the same, priced $8,404 lower. Paid the floor, not its count. |
| Gifted | — | — | $9,409 | 100% of it is units. |
Every 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.
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
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.
Assessed valuation per pupil: not reported.
Operating expenditure per pupil: not reported.
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.
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 | $140 | $40 a pupil. Every district, no test of any kind. |
| Performance supplement | $0 | This district qualifies on none of the three routes: an overall rating above 3.5 stars, a progress rating of 3 or more, or a progress rating higher than the year before. |
| Enrollment growth supplement | $0 | Its enrollment fell 32.50% over three years. This pays only for growth. |
| Outside the formula | $140 | Not held by the guarantee. |
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 | $226,832 | $149,640 | $139,961 | −$9,680 | −$86,871 |
| Foundation aid only | $226,832 | $149,505 | $139,820 | −$9,685 | −$87,011 |
From the FY2026 model to the FY2027 model — the department's models of those years, not payments — total state support moves −6.5% and foundation aid −6.5%. On total state support that is the largest fall of 7 in Erie County, and the line that moved it most is foundation aid, at −$9,685. 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 −$164,062 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 | −$87,011 | Core foundation funding and the guarantee together. Zero for a district held at its base in every year. |
| Transportation | $0 | Outside the foundation formula, and not moved by any lever on the scenario page. |
| Special education transportation | $0 | Prorated against its appropriation, so it moves for reasons a district does not control. |
| Preschool special education | $0 | Also prorated, and also outside the formula. |
| Supplements | +$140 | 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
This district is not in the national comparison. The Census survey's comparable set is unified elementary-and-secondary districts, and this is one of Ohio's few K-8 districts — its spending per pupil is not comparable with a district that also runs a high school. It is carried without a national position rather than given an invented one.
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 $460 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.
The department's EdChoice designated list does not carry this district. Which is not the same as carrying none of its buildings — 528 districts are on the list with nothing designated. Only 3 districts are absent from it altogether, and this is one of them.
This page divides by more than one pupil count. Base cost is built on 5 — 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 4: 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.