The corpus › Formula Component

FSFP Formula Transition Supplement

A second hold-harmless, stacked on top of the temporary transitional aid guarantee and against a different base. Line [K] of the payment report, $63.6m to 144 districts. verified

formula-component/fsfp-formula-transition-supplement · 6 nodes point here · 3 corrections

It exists because the guarantee protects the wrong quantity for some districts. The guarantee compares foundation funding against [H2] Funding Base. This compares everything the formula pays against [L1] FY21 Funding Base:

[K] = max( [L1]  -  ( [H] Foundation Funding + [I] Guarantee
                      + [J] Transportation ),
           0 )

Supplemental targeted assistance is a fourth term in the department’s formula and pays zero for every district in FY2027, so it drops out of the reproduction rather than being dropped.

Three mechanisms, two years, and a line outside the measure Contents

With this and transportation’s own guarantee, Ohio holds districts harmless in three places, on four bases, over three overlapping-but-distinct sets of districts. A reader asking “what is a district held at?” has three answers and needs to know which one is operating.

Two of those bases are FY2020, not FY2021: [H2] and [F1] both reach past Executive Order 2020-19D under the two divisions of R.C. 3317.019, and [H3] — the slice that partitions [H2] — reaches to FY2019. Only [L1] is what its heading says.

And this line sits outside [H] Foundation Funding and outside foundation aid: [N] adds it to [H] alongside the guarantee, so it is absent from realized_aid and present in [R]. Every share the corpus has stated “of the guarantee” has a denominator $63.6m narrower than the hold-harmless money actually is.

What this repository computed Contents

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

So a district whose foundation funding has held up but whose transportation has fallen can draw this while drawing nothing from the guarantee — and 17 of the 144 do exactly that. The two mechanisms are not nested and neither is a special case of the other. verified crates/project/tests/the_supplements_outside_the_formula.rs, reproducing [K] for all 609

The two FY2021 bases are not derivable from each other Contents

[L1] is generally larger than [H2], as it must be to cover more lines — but the difference is not the FY2021 transportation base, and testing that reading is how the corpus found out: the ratio of the gap to FY2021 transportation has a median of 1.59 and lands within one percent of unity for only 6 of 601 districts. [L1] is smaller than [H2] for seven districts, which no additive reading permits at all. verified

What [L1] is a base for is clear from the formula — a FY2021 total formula funding figure, on the same footing as the sum it is compared against. What it is composed of the department publishes too, in a workbook the calculator does not point at: seven terms, which sum to [L1] for all 611 districts. verified crates/project/src/transition_base.rs, which asserts the sum rather than assuming it

The first of those terms is the FY2021 final formula payment with the executive budget reductions restored, and it equals each district’s FY2019 total, because FY2020 and FY2021 foundation funding for traditional districts were held flat to FY2019. So the guarantee the previous formula paid is a term inside [L1], unallocated — which is what makes a third reading of Section 265.225 computable at all. verified See Phasing Out the Temporary Transitional Aid Guarantee for what that reading costs.

It is also why the phase-in is less complete than its terminal year suggests. FY2027 is the year the Fair School Funding Plan reaches 100% of its computed amount, and in that year 294 districts are on the guarantee, 144 on this supplement, and 38 on transportation’s — with the formula’s own output being what all three are measured against and found short. inference

Properties Contents

NameFormula transition supplement
Calculation
H=foundation fundingI=temporary transitional aid guaranteeJ=supplemental targeted assistanceK=transportationL1=FY21 funding basea node of its ownformula transition supplement=max⁡(L1−(H+I+J+K), 0)\begin{aligned} H &= \text{foundation funding} \\ I &= \text{temporary transitional aid guarantee} \\ J &= \text{supplemental targeted assistance} \\ K &= \text{transportation} \\ L_1 &= \text{FY21 funding base} && \text{a node of its own} \\ \text{formula transition supplement} &= \max\bigl( L_1 - (H + I + J + K),\ 0 \bigr) \end{aligned}
Statutory basisNot in R.C. 3317. The department computes it on Detail_SFPR and reports it as line [K]. 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

[L1] is likewise absent from the Revised Code, so it is defined in the same temporary law or administratively. Either way it is not a permanent-law quantity, which is worth knowing about a figure that decides a $63.6m payment.

It has been temporary law with a title since the plan's first biennium. H.B. 583 of the 134th, amending H.B. 110's Section 265.210, refers an appropriation to the section "entitled FORMULA TRANSITION SUPPLEMENT" — so the supplement had a named uncodified home in the act that created it, and has been carried forward in that form through two budgets since. The surrounding words are a strike-and-insert and the extract prints both halves; the reading here is the inserted one. verified crates/project/fixtures/hb583-corrections.txt, crates/project/tests/the_act_that_corrected_the_plan.rs

And the act says what the base is: H.B. 96 extends "a formula transition supplement based on an FY 2021 funding base to districts, community schools, and STEM schools", which is the department's [L1] named in the legislature's own words rather than inferred from the formula's shape. verified lsc-budget What it is composed of the department publishes as seven terms in its foundation funding bases workbook, and they sum to [L1] for all 611 districts. verified crates/project/src/transition_base.rs
CalculatorNot a standalone crate. Carried in crates/project::panel::Transition and reproduced for all 609 districts in crates/project/tests/the_supplements_outside_the_formula.rs.
FY2027 scale$63.6m to 144 districts, of which 17 receive no guarantee. 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 “Where the state aid comes from”. The same link is on 144 of the 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 3

It said

“What it is composed of is not established here. The department publishes it as a value, not a derivation. open” — said twice, of [L1], in findings and in the statute property.

It says

It publishes the derivation as well: seven terms in the foundation funding bases workbook, summing to [L1] for all 611 districts, with the FY2021 final formula payment as the first of them. The claim was true of the calculator, which carries [L1] as one column, and false of the department, which had published the decomposition in another file the whole time.

Settled by

Asking what a bill could do to Section 265.225 other than keep it or repeal it. The third answer needs the guarantee taken out of [L1], so the base had to be decomposed before it could be priced — crates/project/src/transition_base.rs and Foundation Funding Bases — the two bases the phase-in runs from.

What else it touched

The value-not-a-derivation claim is what licensed the scenario node to decline the third reading of Section 265.225 as unavailable, and that refusal stood from the phase that recorded it to this one. A recorded gap in what a quantity is composed of is worth re-asking whenever a downstream node cites it as the reason it cannot compute something: the question here was never blocked on access, only on which file was looked in.

Correction 2 of 3

It said

The heading read “Three mechanisms anchored to one year”, and the body “Ohio holds districts harmless against FY2021 in three places, on three bases”.

It says

Two of the three reach back to FY2020 and one of the bases to FY2019. The corpus retired the FY2021 reading for [F1] and [H2] in the_year_the_column_header_names.rs and the_year_the_guarantee_holds_to.rs; that correction reached fsfp-transportation and the class README and not this node. The [K] formula also carried the FY2022 edition’s lettering, in which [J] was supplemental targeted assistance and [K] transportation.

Settled by

crates/project/tests/the_floors_the_guarantee_denominator_left_out.rs, enumerating all four devices and pinning each base to its anchor year.

What else it touched

Two further carriers of the retired reading survived the correction that settled it: this node and the_supplements_outside_the_formula.rs, whose test was named three_separate_mechanisms_are_anchored_to_fiscal_2021. Both are fixed in the same commit. The figure gate does not read prose, so nothing caught either.

Correction 3 of 3

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.