The corpus › Formula Component

FSFP Preschool Special Education

$148m, line [P], and the one component that combines a flat grant with a weight. Each category pays (ADM x $4,000) + (ADM x weight x average base cost x state share x 0.5), all of it prorated. verified

formula-component/fsfp-preschool-special-education · 4 nodes point here · 1 correction

The flat $4,000 is 69% of the program, and the state share does not touch it Contents

Only the weighted half is reduced by a district’s wealth. So this is the one component in Ohio’s school funding where the wealthiest district and the poorest are funded identically for most of what they receive. Whether that is deliberate leveling or an artifact of bolting a flat grant onto a weighted formula is not established. open

The same six weights behave completely differently here Contents

School-age special education is steeply top-heavy: Category 6 is 15% of the pupils and 48% of the money. Halved and sitting on a flat $4,000, the identical weight vector produces near parity — 5,761 Category 6 pupils draw $52.9m against 10,842 Category 2 pupils drawing $50.6m. verified

That is the sharpest available argument for decomposing components rather than tabulating parameters. A table of Ohio’s special education weights describes neither program, because what the weights do depends entirely on what sits beside them. inference

Its proration factor and the limit beside it are both carried over Contents

This sheet carries an appropriation limit — $147,500,000 — in a cell beside the factor, which is the only place in the calculator that shows a proration’s two halves at once. At the stated 0.96854448 the program totals $148,408,184, which is $908,184 over that cell. verified crates/project/src/panel/supplements.rs

The cell is stale, and no proration arises. $147,500,000 is the FY2025 estimate. The enacted act’s FY2026 and FY2027 remainder for preschool special education is $153,976,832, against which $148,408,184 is $5,568,648 under. The factor and the limit were carried over together from the prior biennium, so a published proration factor is not evidence that a proration applied. A third cell states $146,708,228.07, matching neither. See appropriation proration factor, which holds the full account. verified the enacted act’s LSC analysis, read by crates/project/src/ledger/budget_analysis.rs

Properties Contents

NamePreschool special education
Calculation
aidk=(ADMk×$4,000+ADMk×wk×average base cost per pupil×state share×0.5)×prorationk=1…6w=(0.2435, 0.6179, 1.4845, 1.9812, 2.6830, 3.9554)the school-age weightsaverage base cost per pupil=$8,241.61FY2027proration=0.96854448\begin{aligned} \text{aid}_k &= \Bigl( \text{ADM}_k \times \$4{,}000 \\ &\quad + \text{ADM}_k \times w_k \times \text{average base cost per pupil} \times \text{state share} \times 0.5 \Bigr) \\ &\quad \times \text{proration} && k = 1 \ldots 6 \\ w &= (0.2435,\ 0.6179,\ 1.4845,\ 1.9812,\ 2.6830,\ 3.9554) && \text{the school-age weights} \\ \text{average base cost per pupil} &= \$8{,}241.61 && \text{FY2027} \\ \text{proration} &= 0.96854448 \end{aligned}
Statutory basisR.C. 3317.0213, read. Codified. Division (A) states the formula as "($4,000 X the number of students who are preschool children with disabilities) + …", and every weighted term carries an explicit "X 0.50". Both the flat grant and the halving are the General Assembly's — which is what makes this the one component where the wealthiest district and the poorest are funded identically for most of what they receive, by design rather than by accident. The proration is not in the section and is not statutory; see appropriation proration factor. verified ohio-laws
CalculatorNot a standalone crate. Carried in crates/project::panel::PreschoolSpecialEducation and reproduced for all 609 districts in crates/project/tests/the_supplements_outside_the_formula.rs.
FY2027 scale$148.4m across 26,501 preschool pupils in 606 districts; the flat component is $102.7m of it. 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 606 of the 609 pages like this one.
Change the formulaIn “What these levers hold fixed, and one thing they deliberately do not”.
Change the formula — who it reachesIn “What the reach view holds fixed, and one thing it deliberately does not”.

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

At the stated 0.96854448 the program totals $148,408,184 against its own $147,500,000 limit — $908,184 over — so the program is prorated.

It says

$147,500,000 is the FY2025 estimate. FY2026 and FY2027 are both $153,976,832, against which $148,408,184 is $5,568,648 under, and no proration arises. The factor and the limit beside it were carried over together from the prior biennium.

Settled by

The correction was made in appropriation proration factor from the enacted act’s LSC analysis, and this node went on republishing the withdrawn reading as [verified] with no revisions: block of its own.

What else it touched

The mechanism this node describes is unaffected — the flat grant, the halving and the six weights are all statutory. What changes is the claim that the appropriation binds: it does not, on the year being modeled. A withdrawal recorded in one node does not reach a second node that repeats the claim, which is the defect worth naming rather than the figure.