The corpus › Formula Component

FSFP Base and Enrollment Growth Supplements

Two payments that share a sheet and nothing else. Lines [L] and [M], both inside [N] Total Formula Funding. verified

formula-component/fsfp-enrolment-supplements · 5 nodes point here · 1 correction

The base funding supplement is $40 for every pupil in every district, $56.1m statewide, with no test of any kind. It is the simplest line in the whole calculation and the only one with no conditionality whatever.

The enrollment growth supplement is $250 a pupil for a district whose enrollment rose at least 3% over three years — and it pays on every pupil, not on the pupils gained. $39.4m to 43 districts, against a median district that shrank 4.8%. verified

Paying on the whole roll turns the threshold into a cliff Contents

What clearing 3% is worth has nothing to do with how close a district came: it is $250 times the district’s size. New Lexington grew 2.9502% and drew nothing; three hundredths of a percentage point further and it would have received $430,477. 3 other districts sit between 2.7% and 3%. verified crates/project/tests/the_supplements_outside_the_formula.rs

The cliff sits in a thin part of the distribution, which is where a cliff does its most arbitrary work: Ohio’s median district is shrinking, so the districts near the threshold are few and their neighbors on either side are otherwise alike. inference

It points the opposite way to the guarantee Contents

The guarantee pays a district whose enrollment has fallen; this pays one whose enrollment has risen. The same formula cushions movement in both directions, which means it responds to enrollment change considerably less than its per-pupil construction suggests. And “whether any district draws both” carried a premise that was itself wrong: the base funding supplement has no eligibility test at all. All 609 districts draw it; the growth supplement reaches 43, so the growth districts are a strict subset and “both” is a consequence rather than a coincidence. The two share a sheet and nothing else — $56.1m spread flat across everyone against $39.4m concentrated on 43 districts behind a 3% cliff, which is $92k a district against $916k. verified crates/project/tests/questions_the_corpus_left_open.rs The guarantee comparison below stands — the guarantee tracks aid rather than enrollment, and property wealth predicts it three times more strongly than decline does. verified

What this repository computed Contents

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

The cliff, priced in children rather than in dollars Contents

“$430,477 for three hundredths of a percentage point” states the cliff in money. Stated in children it is sharper: on the supplement’s own measure New Lexington is 0.83 of one pupil short of the threshold, which prices the marginal child there at $516,984.45. verified crates/project Two thousand times the $250 a pupil the rule is written at, for one enrollment.

Two districts sit within one pupil of the threshold and fifteen within ten, of 566 short of it at all. verified crates/project

And it is one of only two margins in this formula a board can act on Contents

Almost everything the plan prices hangs on something nobody chooses. A district’s resident enrollment and its assessed valuation are not board decisions, and for the 294 districts the guarantee pays, the marginal resident pupil is worth nothing whatever. Whom a district admits is a board decision, taken under an open-enrollment policy adopted pursuant to R.C. 3313.98 — and both of the formula’s largest marginal prices hang on it: this cliff, and the open-enrollment clawback’s $8,241.61 an FTE. inference

Nothing here claims any board has acted on either. The claim is that these two are the only prices in the formula a board could act on inside a year, and that they are the largest by three orders of magnitude — the inverse of how an incentive would be designed, and a side effect of paying on a level while testing on an increment. inference

Still open Contents

Why 3% and why three years. Both are single numbers with a cliff behind them and neither is explained in the calculator. open

Properties Contents

NameBase and enrollment growth supplements
Calculation
L=enrolled ADM×$40base funding supplementM1=FY26 enrolled ADM−FY23 enrolled ADMFY23 enrolled ADMenrollment changeM2=M1≥3%eligibilityM={enrolled ADM×$250if M20otherwisegrowth supplement\begin{aligned} L &= \text{enrolled ADM} \times \$40 && \text{base funding supplement} \\ M_1 &= \frac{\text{FY26 enrolled ADM} - \text{FY23 enrolled ADM}}{\text{FY23 enrolled ADM}} && \text{enrollment change} \\ M_2 &= M_1 \ge 3\% && \text{eligibility} \\ M &= \begin{cases} \text{enrolled ADM} \times \$250 & \text{if } M_2 \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} && \text{growth supplement} \end{aligned}
Statutory basisNot in R.C. 3317. Reported as lines [L] and [M]; the $40, the $250 and the 3% threshold are transcribed from the calculator. Confirmed uncodified. The statute audit searched R.C. 3317.022 — the section that assembles core foundation funding — and every other section this corpus cites. It is in none of them. The authority is the budget act's temporary law, H.B. 96 of the 136th General Assembly, which codes.ohio.gov does not carry and which lapses with the biennium unless re-enacted.

That is a statement about durability, not about legality; Ohio funds a great deal this way. It means this payment has no permanent statutory home, unlike base cost or the categorical weights beside it on the same report.

The act is held, and it names the sections. The H.B. 96 final analysis is committed at crates/project/fixtures/enacted-school-funding.txt, and its citation block for Funding for FY 2026 and FY 2027 closes Sections 265.215, 265.220, 265.230, 265.237, 265.239, and 265.450 — the six uncodified sections of the act carrying the school financing system for the biennium, this payment among them. verified lsc-budget

A bounded list, not a pinpoint. The analysis cites the sections for the topic and not for each supplement inside it, and separating them needs the enrolled act rather than LSC's account of it. open which of the six, not whether
CalculatorNot a standalone crate. Carried in crates/project::panel::Supplements and reproduced for all 609 districts in crates/project/tests/the_supplements_outside_the_formula.rs.
FY2027 scaleBase supplement $56.1m to all 609 districts; growth supplement $39.4m to 43. verified

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 “Outside the formula”. 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 1

It said

The statutory home of this payment was recorded as unreadable: “Reading the enacted bill text is lsc-budget, still blocked on PDFs”, with the bill section marked [open].

It says

lsc-budget is wired and the act is committed. The H.B. 96 final analysis names the sections in its own citation block — Sections 265.215, 265.220, 265.230, 265.237, 265.239, and 265.450 — and what remains open is which of the six, not whether the document can be read.

Settled by

A corpus review crossing every blocker claim against the connector registry. lsc-budget carries Status::Wired, its output has been committed at crates/project/fixtures/enacted-school-funding.txt since the phase that landed it, and crates/project/tests/what_the_act_says_and_the_code_does_not.rs already asserts two of these three supplements’ own figures against that file.

What else it touched

Three nodes carried the sentence verbatim — this one, the performance supplement and the enrollment supplements — and a fourth, DPIA, had already gone through the same route and recorded a revision for it. The blocker was false on the day the sibling’s revision was written; nothing compared them. It is the failure that test’s own header names — reading a recorded claim instead of the source behind it — committed in the class the test was written for.