The corpus › Draft Legislation
Fund the Plan and Retire the Guarantee
A hypothetical six-provision bill that refreshes the cost inputs and retires half the temporary transitional aid guarantee with its backstopping supplement. It lowers the transportation floor and does two further things no lever reaches. Nobody proposed it. It exists to be the case a single-provision draft cannot be.
draft-legislation/fund-the-plan-and-retire-the-guarantee
This draft, in Change the formula Contents
4 of this draft's 6 provisions bind a lever in the FY2027 model, so they can be run across all 609 districts. The other 2 set no lever: whatever the runner shows is the cost of 4 clauses and not of the bill.
The two halves of Ohio’s school funding argument, put in one bill. Refreshing the base cost reference year is what advocates of the Fair School Funding Plan ask for; retiring the temporary transitional aid guarantee is what its critics ask for; and the two are usually argued as though each could be decided without the other.
They cannot. Just under half of Ohio’s districts are funded by the guarantee rather than by the formula, holding more than half the state’s students, and for them the formula is not what determines their aid. verified So a refresh reaches them only to the extent it lifts them off the floor, and a phase-out reaches only the districts standing on it. Each provision is approximately inert over the population the other one moves.
The six provisions, and why two of them are still here Contents
Four bind to levers: the reference year moves from FY2022 to FY2024, the guarantee closes half the gap between its FY2020 baseline and the formula amount, Section 265.225 is repealed alongside it, and the transportation reimbursement floor moves from 50% to 37.5%.
The other two are the point. A raise to the six special education category weights and holding a resident district harmless for its scholarship deductions are ordinary contents of an Ohio budget act, and neither produces a number here. verified
A bill of six provisions where four produce numbers is closer to the normal case than a bill of one provision that prices completely, which is the reason for authoring it.
What it is not Contents
Not a proposal, not introduced, and not attributable to anyone. Ohio legislates school funding inside the operating budget, so a real version of this would arrive as a few dozen sections of a bill that also carries Medicaid and highway appropriations, and its provisions would not arrive as a tidy list of six.
The provision values are also chosen rather than derived. A half phase-out and an 8% weight raise are round numbers picked to be legible, not positions anybody has taken. inference
What this repository computed Contents
Not what Ohio publishes. Figures derived here from committed fixtures, each one citing the test that reproduces it.
The bill cuts $325.6 million and its four priced provisions, costed separately, say $7.4
million. Run with cargo run -p project --bin edfund-project -- --draft fund-the-plan-and-retire-the-guarantee.
total state support $8,071M -> $7,745M -$325.6M
of which -$143.9M foundation
-$118.1M transportation
-$63.6M transition supplement
districts 297 up, 312 down, 0 unmoved
on the guarantee 294 -> 253
guarantee cost $879M -> $364M
provision 1 reference year FY2022 -> FY2024 +$207.5M
provision 2 guarantee half retired -$70.8M
provision 4 transportation floor to 37.5 percent -$80.5M
provision 6 Section 265.225 repealed -$63.6M
interaction residual -$318.2M
verified crates/project/tests/a_draft_cannot_hide_what_it_did_not_price.rs
The headline is against total state support rather than realized aid, because two of the four priced provisions move channels core foundation funding does not contain. Run against realized aid alone it would have priced at −$143.9M, which omits more than half of what the bill does. verified
Why there is a sixth provision Contents
It was added after the hold-harmless inventory found that the guarantee has a backstop. Retiring the guarantee without repealing Section 265.225 makes this bill a net spend of $92.6M rather than a cut, because the formula transition supplement tops a district up to its FY2021 base from a total that already contains the guarantee. The provision is stated rather than implied so the choice is visible, and so a reader can price the other reading by dropping it. verified
The residual is now larger than the bill, and it has changed sign Contents
Pricing the provisions apart and adding them gives −$7.4M. Running them together gives −$325.6M. The separate figures understate the cut by $318.2 million, where they used to overstate it by $75.1M — the residual has not merely grown, it has changed sign.
The reason is provisions 2 and 6, which are nearly inert apart and compound together. The
mechanism is recorded at formula-component/fsfp-formula-transition-supplement: the guarantee
is a term in the formula transition supplement’s own subtrahend, so
retiring half the guarantee while Section 265.225 stands saves $70.8M of an apparent $439.5M —
the supplement rises to make 90.9% of it good. Repealing the supplement alone saves $63.6M.
Doing both saves far more than their sum, because neither is any longer absorbing the other.
The guarantee’s max still double-counts in the direction it always did — a district lifted
off the floor by the refresh cannot be lifted off it again by the phase-out — and that effect
is now the smaller half of the residual. verified
This is why a draft’s cost is one combined run and the per-provision figures are attribution only. Any process that prices clauses independently and sums them — which is the natural way to read a bill — is wrong by an amount that grows with how much the clauses interact, and two clauses that cancel each other apart can be most of a bill together. verified
The backstop shelters 113 districts from both levers until provision 6 removes it Contents
Zero unmoved for the bill, against 267 for the refresh alone and 442 for the guarantee alone:
refresh alone 342 up, 267 unmoved
half phase-out alone 167 down, 442 unmoved
all four together 297 up, 312 down, 0 unmoved
267 + 442 = 709 against 609 districts, so the two unmoved sets now overlap in 113
districts — and every one of them draws the formula transition supplement. A district the
supplement holds at its FY2021 base is untouched by either lever: base cost rises and [K]
falls; the guarantee falls and [K] rises. verified
That overturns what this node previously recorded. The old reading was that the two unmoved
sets are disjoint — 253 held on the guarantee throughout and 315 paid by the formula, summing
to 568 with nobody in both — and it was true of a model that had no [K] in it. What made the
combination reach every district was never the arithmetic of two levers; it is provision 6
taking the shelter away. verified
Two of six provisions are not in any of these numbers Contents
Stated here rather than only in the property, because a figure and its caveat separated by a page are a figure. The special education weights and the scholarship hold-harmless are absent from every figure above. Both would move money in the opposite direction to the headline, so the sign of this bill’s net effect is not established by its priced subset.
Properties Contents
| Provenance | hypothetical |
|---|---|
| Designation | None, and none is available. There is no such bill, and a designation is the one thing a reader will believe without checking. |
| General Assembly | Not applicable. |
| Sponsors | None. |
| Status | Never introduced and not proposed by anyone. Authored to exercise the case a single-provision draft cannot: several provisions that interact, and several the calculators cannot reach. verified that it was authored here; the provisions are a construction |
| Text read | No text exists to pin. The two priced provisions restate changes with established precedent — H.B. 33 refreshed the reference year once, and the guarantee rule is the one project::policy::GuaranteeRule already models — and the three unpriced ones are constructed to be ordinary rather than drawn from any instrument. verified |
| Question | What does a bill look like when it does the thing both sides of Ohio's funding argument ask for, and how much of such a bill can actually be priced? |
| Provisions | Six provisions; four price. 1. Base cost reference year: FY2022 → FY2024. R.C. 3317.011. Binds Base Cost Per Pupil; base_cost_scale = 1.0395. Runnable. verified2. Temporary transitional aid guarantee: half retired. Uncodified — set by each biennial budget and gone if not re-enacted. Binds Guarantee Funding Base; GuaranteeRule::PhasedOut { remaining: 0.5 }. Runnable. verified3. Special education category weights raised 8 percent. R.C. 3317.014. Not runnable — no lever expresses a categorical weight. 4. Transportation reimbursement floor raised to 37.5 percent. R.C. 3317.0212. Not runnable, against Transportation Cost Rates; transport-floor at 0.375 against current law's 0.50. It is a reduction of 12.5 percentage points, worth −$118.1M, because H.B. 96 raised the floor after the draft was written. verified5. Resident district held harmless for scholarship deductions. R.C. 3310.41. Not runnable — outside the model, and its baseline is superseded. See unpriced.The committed binding is draft-provisions.tsv, which is authoritative; a test fails if this list departs from it. |
| Not priced | Two of five, and the $262.0M figure does not include either of them. Special education category weights (provision 3, R.C. 3317.014). Unlevered rather than unmodeled — the six weights are carried and the categorical total is computed, but nothing scales one weight. A lever would cost a field on Policy, a checkpoint in bundle, and a mirrored implementation in web/src/lib/policy.ts, because verify.ts refuses to render the scenario page until the browser reproduces every Rust checkpoint. verifiedThat price was quoted here as a reason, and it has since been paid three times over — for the transportation floor below and for two levers this draft does not use. It is the cost of a lever and not an obstacle to one; this provision is unlevered because nobody has done it. inference Scholarship hold-harmless (provision 5, R.C. 3310.41). Outside the model, and its baseline no longer stands. The provision is stated against a deduction from the resident district, and R.C. 3317.022 describes that deduction in the past tense — "division (C)(2) of section 3310.41 of the Revised Code as that division existed prior to September 30, 2021". The mechanism it proposes to repeal was repealed four years before the draft was written, so the provision costs nothing and fixes nothing. verified crates/project Left as written and reported as superseded rather than corrected, for the reason provision 4 is: a draft that quietly acquires the law its author meant is not a record of anything.It is also outside the model, and the furthest out of the three. The deduct channel needs the per-agency participation series deduction was declared for and never received; the connector that would carry it sits behind the department's authenticated reports portal. open |
Links Contents
| Instance of | Draft Legislation |
|---|---|
| Shares a provision with | Counterfactual: H.B. 96 with FY2024 Cost Inputs |
| Alters | Base Cost Per Pupil |
| Alters | Guarantee Funding Base |
| Alters | Transportation Cost Rates |
| Priced by | Phasing Out the Temporary Transitional Aid Guarantee |
| Priced by | FSFP Cost Input Refresh vs. Freeze |
| Measured against | Fair School Funding Plan |
| Alters | Temporary Transitional Aid Guarantee |