The corpus › Formula Component

FSFP English Learner Weights

$36m, the smallest of the six, and the only weighted categorical in the plan whose weights run downward. verified

formula-component/fsfp-english-learner-weights · 5 nodes point here · 2 corrections

The weights descend: 0.2104, 0.1577, 0.1053 Contents

Category 1 is the most recently arrived learner and is funded at almost exactly twice Category 3. So the program pays most in a pupil’s first year and least in their third — it tapers as need persists rather than deepening with it. verified

Special education runs the other way, ascending from 0.2435 to 3.9554 as need deepens. A reader who assumes Ohio’s weights mean “more need, more money” has this one backwards. Established from what districts are actually paid per pupil in each category rather than from the transcribed weights. verified

The statute settles the mechanism and narrows the motive Contents

R.C. 3317.016 defines the first category by time enrolled in schools in the United States — 180 school days or less — and the second as running until the student achieves a proficient score on the spring administration of the English language proficiency assessment. So the taper is keyed to a clock the district does not set and an exit event it does not score. verified ohio-laws

That is evidence against the reclassification-incentive reading and it is not proof: a district still influences how quickly a pupil reaches proficiency, and the money still falls when they do. What can be said is that the statute’s own construction is a schedule rather than a discretion. Whether the descent expresses a judgment that acquisition costs most at the start is still not established. open

The counts are not frozen, and watching them move is the taper in action Contents

The EL sheet heads its three count columns Category 1 EL ADM-FY21, and the suffix is a label on the FY2022 report the sheet was built for. The count moves in 512 of 611 districts between the department’s two published models, and it moves the way the schedule says it should: Category 1, the most recently arrived, falls 22%, while Category 3 — already scored proficient — rises 12.8% and the total barely moves. That is one year of a cohort walking down the taper, visible in the counts. verified crates/project

What this repository computed Contents

Not what Ohio publishes. Figures derived here from committed fixtures, each one citing the test that reproduces it.

All three multiples match the statute exactly — 0.2104, 0.1577, 0.1053. verified

Near-universal and almost entirely concentrated, which the total hides both ways Contents

505 of 609 districts have at least one English learner — this is not a big-city program by reach. But the median receiving district’s entire allocation is about $6,300, roughly a fifteenth of one teacher, while 38 districts hold 80% of the money and the largest five hold a third. verified

So “almost every district receives English learner funding” and “English learner funding goes to a few dozen districts” are both true of the same $36m, and a reader given only the total will pick whichever they already believed. That is the general argument for decomposing the categorical lump, stated by the smallest program in it. inference

Composition moves this program, and it is now a number Contents

Because the schedule descends, a pupil who advances a category costs their district money without leaving its population. Between the department’s two published models 46 districts held or grew their English learner headcount and saw their weighted count fall anyway, out of the 524 with any English learner at all. The statewide weighted count falls 3.3% against a headcount that falls 1.2%. verified crates/project

The vintage itself moved, and the department does not say why Contents

Its own table covers four models. The FY2024 and FY2025 simulations drew their categorical counts from FY2023 — the prior year, an actual. The FY2026 and FY2027 simulations draw them from FY2026, which for the later of the two is a year that has not ended. A prior-year count is something a district reported and a current-year count is something it is still reporting, and the change between them is unexplained in the table that records it. open

Properties Contents

NameEnglish learner weights
Calculation
aidk=ADMk×wk×statewide average base cost per pupil×state sharew=(0.2104, 0.1577, 0.1053)category 1 is the newest arrivalstatewide average base cost per pupil=$8,241.61FY2027total=∑k=13aidk\begin{aligned} \text{aid}_k &= \text{ADM}_k \times w_k \\ &\quad \times \text{statewide average base cost per pupil} \times \text{state share} \\ w &= (0.2104,\ 0.1577,\ 0.1053) && \text{category 1 is the newest arrival} \\ \text{statewide average base cost per pupil} &= \$8{,}241.61 && \text{FY2027} \\ \text{total} &= \sum_{k=1}^{3} \text{aid}_k \end{aligned}
Statutory basisR.C. 3317.016. The three categories are defined by time in a United States school; the weights are transcribed from the FY2027 calculator and confirmed against the department's own per-category amounts.
CalculatorNot a standalone crate. Reproduced for all 609 districts in crates/project/tests/the_remaining_categoricals.rs; carried in crates/project::panel::EnglishLearners.

Where this appears on the site Contents

The pages outside the corpus that link here, and the section of each the link sits in.

Cleveland MunicipalIn “The categorical half, in its six parts”. The same link is on all 609 pages like this one.

What this node used to say Contents

The corpus is not rewritten to have always been right. Each entry is a claim this node carried, what replaced it, and the thing that settled it.

Correction 1 of 2

It said

The counts these weights multiply are frozen at FY2021, on the strength of the column header Category 1 EL ADM-FY21 — and “for a program whose whole structure is about how recently a pupil arrived, funding on a count six years old is a stranger fact than it is for CTE: the FY2021 Category 1 learners are not the FY2027 Category 1 learners”.

It says

The suffix is a label carried forward with a sheet built for the FY2022 report. The counts are FY2026’s, and this program is where the mistake was easiest to catch, because its counts are the ones that move most: 512 of 611 districts, and Category 1 down 22% in a single year.

Settled by

crates/project, against the department’s own table of where each variable is drawn from. It names four models and puts the categorical counts at FY23, FY23, FY26 (Aug #1) and FY26 (Nov #2); the only thing in either workbook drawn from FY2021 is the guarantee funding base, which is a dollar amount.

What else it touched

The same claim stood on career-technical, which is where it was first written, and on both parameter nodes beneath them. The furthest it reached is this program’s own multiples node, whose sensitivity argued from the freeze that what moves the program is composition rather than size. Composition does move it — the taper is real — but because pupils advance through the categories, not because nobody recounted them.

Correction 2 of 2

It said

This was recorded as the only weighted categorical whose weights run downward — “every other weighted categorical runs the other way”.

It says

Career-technical descends too — 0.623, 0.5905, 0.2154, 0.183, 0.157. The supportable claim is narrower and more interesting: this is the only categorical whose weights fall along a need gradient. Career-technical’s ordering is program type, not severity.

Settled by

The sibling node’s own account of what each of its five multiples buys, under R.C. 3317.014.

What else it touched

The over-claim had been inherited by district.ts’s English-learner card, which asserted it twice; both were corrected together. No weight or amount on this component moves — what changes is the class of thing it is unique within.