What changed, FY2025 to FY2027

The two measures # ↑ ContentsFY2025-FY2027FY2025-FY2027 — fiscal years, July to June. Source: DEW FY25 final payment report, FY26 and FY27 funding calculators.

From FY2025 to FY2027, total state support to Ohio's 609 districts rose $145.0M and foundation aid fell $114.5M, provision by provision. Total state support is every line the department pays a district through; foundation aid is core foundation funding and the guarantee alone. The difference between them is transportation, the two special education lines and the named supplements, and from FY2025 to FY2027 those together rose $259.5M. The funding bases foundation aid is paid from do not move, so its change is paid above them, and the phase-in is where that payment is set out.

FY2025 is the department's final payment report; FY2026 and FY2027 are its models of those years, not payments. The population is the 609 districts all three files carry, in nominal dollars.

The repealed supplement # ↑ ContentsFY2025-FY2027FY2025-FY2027 — fiscal years, July to June. Source: DEW FY25 final payment report, FY26 and FY27 funding calculators.

Supplemental targeted assistance paid $52,272,453 to 36 districts in FY2025, and H.B. 96 repealed it: neither model year carries it. It is a line of total state support and not of foundation aid, so it is the one provision here whose whole effect can be read off by subtraction.

With the supplement taken out of FY2025, statewide total state support from FY2025 to FY2026 reads +$164.4M rather than +$112.2M. The last row is what the rest of a recipient's payment did: 19 recipients were cut with the supplement counted, and 2 without it.

Direct certification in DPIA # ↑ ContentsFY2025-FY2027FY2025-FY2027 — fiscal years, July to June. Source: DEW FY25 final payment report, FY26 and FY27 funding calculators.

Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid counts a district's poor pupils as a blend of its economically disadvantaged count and its directly certified count. H.B. 96 gives the directly certified count more of the blend in FY2027 than in FY2026, and the count the FY2027 model carries is lower than the one in the FY2026 model; the node sets out both, with the act's text.

DPIA fell in 562 of the 609. It is a component of the formula's calculated aid, not a payment line, so it is never added to either measure. Where the FY2027 formula calculates above a district's base, the phase-in is complete and calculated aid is paid, so the fall reaches foundation aid. Where it calculates at or below the base, the guarantee holds the district up and a smaller DPIA deepens the shortfall the guarantee pays rather than the payment. The FY2025 payment report does not itemize DPIA, so its year is not a column here.

Reappraisal and the state share # ↑ ContentsFY2025-FY2027FY2025-FY2027 — fiscal years, July to June. Source: DEW FY25 final payment report, FY26 and FY27 funding calculators.

A district's state share is the part of base cost left for the state after its local capacity is charged, and a reappraisal raises the valuation that capacity is measured on. The same rise in capacity takes the same dollars off every district's share, which is a much larger part of a small share than of a large one. So the lower a district's share starts, the more of its aid a valuation rise takes.

The state share change is relative to the share itself. At the minimum the share cannot fall further, and a district held at its base loses no foundation aid when its share falls, because the guarantee pays what the formula no longer does, so the bands set those apart. The files publish the valuation and the share and not how much of a share's fall the valuation caused, which also moves with enrollment and income.

This card sees one step, FY2026 to FY2027 models, because FY2025's payment report publishes no state share; the valuation is measured over the tax years that step reads, TY2024 to TY2025. A district reappraised for tax year 2024 takes its fall on the step before, FY2025 paid to FY2026 model, which this card cannot show: it is on that district's Change tab. The directory sorts every district on its foundation aid across that step and on its own share's change.

The phase-in # ↑ ContentsFY2025-FY2027FY2025-FY2027 — fiscal years, July to June. Source: DEW FY25 final payment report, FY26 and FY27 funding calculators.

Foundation aid is paid as the funding base plus a share of the gap between what the formula calculates and that base — the phase-in percentage. The rate below is read off the files, as what each district above its base was paid of its gap.

The rate rose from 66.7% to 100.0%, and the phase-in paid $114.5M less above bases in FY2027 than in FY2025, because the gap it pays a share of shrank from $1.51B to $889.0M, and 111 fewer districts had one at all. A district whose formula calculates at or below its base gains nothing from a higher rate: 273 are paid exactly their base in FY2027, and the phase-in does not reach them.

The funding bases sum to $6.40B in all three years, so the bases do not move, and the change in foundation aid is paid above them. From FY2025 to FY2027, foundation aid fell $114.5M and the phase-in's payment above bases fell $114.5M: the same money, to within $35,918. That difference is the open enrollment clawback, which holds some districts below their base: $3.1M across 16 districts in FY2025 and $3.0M across 22 in FY2027, and nothing in the FY2026 model.