Am. Sub. H.B. 110 (2021) — FY2022-23 Budget; Fair School Funding Plan
The FY2022-23 operating budget, which enacted the Fair School Funding Plan. The plan came out of a workgroup of practitioners — school treasurers and superintendents — convened in late 2017 by House Speaker Robert Cupp and then-Representative John Patterson, not by executive budget staff. verified That origin is unusual enough to be a structural fact about the plan: it was designed by the people who operate district budgets, and it is the only Ohio formula built that way.
legislation/hb-110-2021 · 14 nodes point here · 1 correction
Three departures from everything before it, all confirmed in the department’s own methodology documentation. verified
Funds students where they are educated, not where they live. The deduction and transfer of funds from resident districts for students attending community schools, STEM schools, scholarship programs, and open enrollment is generally eliminated. This is the mechanism at the center of a decade of district revenue-loss arguments.
Establishes an input-based model informed by professional judgment. Base cost is built from student-teacher ratios, minimum service levels, and actual costs, producing a unique base cost per pupil for each district and community school in the state.
Measures local capacity by property and income together. The state and local cost methodology uses both assessed property values and resident income to determine the state share — replacing a charge-off that saw only valuation.
In FY2022 the plan distributed almost $7.5 billion in state foundation funding to 611 school districts, at a phase-in of 16.67% for most components and 0% for Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid. verified The base cost was priced from FY2018 statewide average salaries. verified
H.B. 583 of the same General Assembly made technical corrections to the formula in June 2022 and is incorporated into the FY2022 calculations. verified The formula Ohio actually ran in FY2022 is therefore this act as corrected, and reconciling a figure against the text of H.B. 110 alone reconciles against a formula that was never run.
The act specified a six-year phase-in that no enacting General Assembly could bind its successors to complete, and the plan has been re-legislated in each subsequent budget. verified
Properties Contents
| Designation | Am. Sub. H.B. 110 |
|---|---|
| General Assembly | 134th General Assembly |
| Signed | 2021-06-30 |
| Effective | 2021-06-30 |
| When each part took effect | Two dates, and effective above carries the appropriation one. Signed 30 June 2021, with the operating appropriations effective then; the other provisions, the Fair School Funding Plan's amendments to R.C. 3317 among them, took effect generally on 30 September 2021. verified LSC's enrolled analysis The statute in force still cites that date for the prior law it replaced, "as that division existed prior to September 30, 2021". verified crates/project The legislature's version index returns every date field empty for this act. (the legislature's version index) |
| What it did | Enacted the FY2022-23 operating budget and established the Fair School Funding Plan: district-specific base cost built from staffing ratios and minimum service levels priced at FY2018 statewide average salaries; a local capacity measure combining assessed property valuation with resident income; direct state funding of community and STEM school students in place of the resident-district deduction; categorical weights for special education, economic disadvantage, English learners, gifted, and career-technical; and a six-year phase-in of the computed amount, beginning at 16.67% in FY2022. |
| Vetoes | Four, all about who supervises community schools rather than about the plan this act is known for. verified the greenbook JCARR review of the Education Management Information System. The act would have subjected proposed changes to EMIS, and to the department's business rules and policies affecting community schools, to review by the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review. Vetoed. The same idea returns in H.B. 33 aimed at the full-time-equivalency manual, and is vetoed again. Also vetoed: allowing a low-performing community school where most pupils are children with disabilities to contract with a new sponsor without departmental approval; exempting a nonpublic school that declines to take part in College Credit Plus from the program's requirements and rules; and requiring the department to award a scholarship on a conditionally approved application where the pupil enrolled in an EdChoice-accepting chartered nonpublic school within a year. Nothing in the Fair School Funding Plan itself was vetoed. The formula, the base cost build-up, the local capacity measure and the guarantee all passed as enrolled. |
| Effect on accountability | It is where the rating bonuses ended. Its greenbook carries none of the four terms the census in Ohio report card searches for, where H.B. 166's still carried the graduation and third grade reading bonuses. verified crates/project, rating_payments::quiet, pinned by test The census now also searches the heading of H.B. 153's high performance subsidy, which its first four terms missed, and the greenbooks for this act and H.B. 33 still carry none of the five: the formula paid on no rating from FY2022 until H.B. 96. verified crates/project, rating_payments::quiet, pinned by test Outside the formula a rating still bought money, for community schools: the Quality Community Schools payment rose to $54.0 million a year, on standards that include report card grades. verifiedIt barred new academic distress commissions for 2021-22 and 2022-23 and gave Lorain, East Cleveland and Youngstown a way out of theirs through an improvement plan; barred automatic closure of a community school on any rating issued before 2022-23; dropped the rule confining new start-up community schools to a "challenged school district", which a low rating could make a district; and moved the years performance-based EdChoice reads its building rankings from. verified greenbook The report card's own revision is not this act's: LSC's final analysis places it in H.B. 82 of the same General Assembly. inference See academic distress commission. |
Where this appears on the site Contents
The pages outside the corpus that link here, and the section of each the link sits in.
Links Contents
| Instance of | Legislation |
|---|---|
| Establishes | Fair School Funding Plan |
| Sets | Base Cost Per Pupil |
| Sets | FSFP Phase-In Percentage |
| Makes measurable | Adequacy |
| Appropriates for | FY2022-23 Biennium |
| Amended by | Sub. H.B. 583 (2022) — corrective and technical changes to the Fair School Funding Plan |
| Sourced from | School Finance Payment Report — Line by Line Explanation |
Also mentions
Pointed at by
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
effective: 2021-07-01, the first day of the biennium, which is neither of the act’s dates.
It says
effective: 2021-06-30, the day the operating appropriations took effect, with the
September date of the formula’s amendments recorded in effective_note.
Settled by
LSC’s enrolled analysis of H.B. 110 of the 134th, whose cover gives both dates.
What else it touched
Nothing read the date: no other node, crate or page cites it, and the fiscal period the act funds takes its start from its own definition.