The corpus › Formula Component
FSFP Special Education Weights
$722m, the second-largest categorical, and the plainest of the six: six categories of disability, each carrying a statutory weight, each weight multiplying the statewide average base cost per pupil and then the district’s ADM in that category and its state share percentage. verified
formula-component/fsfp-special-education-weights · 10 nodes point here · 1 correction
The weights are the policy, and they span a factor of sixteen Contents
Category 1 is 0.2435 and Category 6 is 3.9554. A Category 6 pupil generates nearly four times what a pupil with no disability does; a Category 1 pupil about a quarter. Which category a child is assigned to is not an administrative detail — it is most of the money. verified
The weights are on the general base cost, not their own Contents
They multiply the statewide average base cost per pupil, $8,241.61 — the same multiplicand English learner weights use, and not the one career-technical weights use, which is 20% higher. Three weighted programs, two multiplicands, and no published table says so. A reader comparing a special education weight against a CTE weight as though they were on one scale is out by a fifth before any pupil is counted. verified
The categories are named in statute Contents
R.C. 3317.013 lists the six categories in the same order as the multiples, cross-referencing
Chapter 3323 for each term. Category 1 is a speech and language disability; Category 2
gathers specific learning disability, developmental disability and delay, other health
impairment-minor, and preschool developmental delay; the higher categories run through the
multiple-disability and low-incidence conditions. verified ohio-laws
What this repository computed Contents
Not what Ohio publishes. Figures derived here from committed fixtures, each one citing the test that reproduces it.
The distribution runs against the weights, not with them Contents
Statewide, Category 6 is 15% of the pupils and 48% of the money; Category 2 is 65% of the pupils and 34%. Between them those two are 82% of the money and 80% of the pupils, and they are opposite shapes — many pupils at a low weight against few at a very high one. Category 4 is 1,060 pupils statewide and $5.7m. verified
That matters for any projection. A program dominated by a category that is 15% of its caseload is sensitive to identification practice in a way a per-pupil program is not: a small change in how many children are placed in Category 6 moves more money than a large change in Category 2. inference
The multiples match the statute to the last digit Contents
All six — 0.2435, 0.6179, 1.4845, 1.9812, 2.6830, 3.9554. That is a genuinely new kind of
check: every prior verification confirmed the department agreed with itself, and a
spreadsheet can be internally perfect and still not be the law. verified crates/project/tests/the_statute_behind_the_weights.rs
Still open: whether the sixteen-fold range tracks a sixteen-fold difference in cost. Naming the categories settles what is being ordered and not what it costs, and no source the corpus holds prices a category. open
Nor is the relationship to the federal IDEA Part B allocation established. Ohio receives a federal grant for the same children and the corpus holds the allocations (catalog) without having joined them to this. A district’s special education funding is the sum of both, and this component is one of them. open
Properties Contents
| Name | Special education weights |
|---|---|
| Calculation | |
| Statutory basis | R.C. 3317.013 sets the six categories and their weights; the categories themselves are defined by rule. The weights here are transcribed from the FY2027 calculator and confirmed against the department's own per-category amounts, which is a check on the transcription rather than on the statute. verified |
| Calculator | Not a standalone crate. Reproduced from published inputs for all 609 districts in crates/project/tests/finances_and_the_guarantee.rs; carried in crates/project::panel::SpecialEducation. |
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 Municipal | In “The categorical half, in its six parts”. The same link is on all 609 pages like this one. |
|---|
Links Contents
| Instance of | Formula Component |
|---|---|
| Distributes | State Foundation Aid |
| Governed by | Base Cost Per Pupil |
| Weighted against | FSFP Base Cost Calculation |
| Sourced from | IDEA Part B Allocations to Districts |
| Sourced from | FY27 TRAD State Foundation Funding Calculator |
| Governed by | Special Education Category Multiples |
Also mentions
Pointed at by
| FSFP Career-Technical Weights | Shares mechanism with |
|---|---|
| FSFP English Learner Weights | Shares mechanism with |
| FSFP Preschool Special Education | Shares weights with |
| FSFP Transportation | Parallels |
| Fair School Funding Plan | Made up of |
| Am. Sub. H.B. 94 (2001) — FY2002-03 Budget; the post-DeRolph II formula | Originates |
| Special Education Category Multiples | Read by |
| Autism Scholarship | Parallels |
| Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship | Parallels |
| IDEA Part B | Parallels |
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 clinical definitions of the six disability categories were recorded as being “in rule rather than in the calculator”, and unread.
It says
They are in statute. R.C. 3317.013 names all six in the same order as the multiples, cross-referencing Chapter 3323 for each term.
Settled by
R.C. 3317.013, read via ohio-laws.
What else it touched
The ordering inferred from the money is the ordering the General Assembly wrote, so no figure moves. What changes is that the categories are named rather than ranked — which is what any claim about who sits in Category 6 needs, and Category 6 is 15% of the pupils and 48% of the money.