Am. Sub. H.B. 95 (2003) — FY2004-05 Budget; the First After DeRolph
The first operating budget enacted after the Supreme Court released jurisdiction over DeRolph, six weeks earlier. It changed nothing structural about the formula the litigation had been about: the same successful-schools base cost, the same county cost adjustment, the same 23 mills.
legislation/hb-95-2003 · 3 nodes point here · 1 correction
Signed six weeks after the Ohio Supreme Court ended eleven years of school funding litigation, and the clearest available evidence of what the end of that litigation did to the funding system.
The formula it kept. Base cost is formula amount × cost of doing business factor × formula ADM. The formula amount is $5,058 in FY2004 and $5,169 in FY2005, reached by inflating a
per-pupil figure of $4,814 — itself derived by the 124th General Assembly from FY1999 spending
data — at 2.8% a year. verified the greenbook
The derivation is the successful-schools method: each district’s spending per pupil corrected for special education, career-technical education, transportation, disadvantaged pupil impact aid, federal funding and the cost of doing business adjustment; the top and bottom 5% on each of two wealth measures removed as outliers; the remainder averaged. The local contribution requirement stayed at 23 mills. verified
What it did move. Parity aid — the equalization supplement for low-wealth districts — rises 59.2% in FY2004 and 33.1% in FY2005, and the special education weighted funding percentage rises to 88% in FY2004. verified Both are increases inside an unchanged structure.
Scale. 612 school districts, 49 joint vocational districts and 132 community schools; GRF appropriations of $7,149.3 million in FY2004 and $7,317.8 million in FY2005, $9,334.1 million and $9,648.1 million across all funds. Combined state and local expenditure on the system exceeded $16 billion in FY2002. verified
What this repository computed Contents
Not what Ohio publishes. Figures derived here from committed fixtures, each one citing the test that reproduces it.
What the end of the litigation looks like in a budget act Contents
DeRolph enforcement ended on 16 May 2003, when the court granted a writ of prohibition barring the trial court from further proceedings on remand — no compliance finding either way. verified DeRolph v. State (DeRolph IV, 2002) This act was signed six weeks later.
It is the natural place to look for the system’s response, and the response is that there was none of a structural kind. The base cost method the court had heard argument about for a decade is carried forward with an inflator; the cost of doing business factor the plaintiffs objected to is retained; the 23-mill charge-off is unchanged. The money inside the structure moves — parity aid substantially — but nothing about how a district’s entitlement is computed does. inference
That is a claim about one act and not about the decade, and the corpus cannot yet check it against the two budgets on either side: H.B. 94 (2001) has a node written from secondary recitation, and no act between H.B. 66 (2005) and this one is missing, but the FY2006-07 pair is read only through its appropriation table. open
The base cost figure the whole plan is measured against starts here Contents
$5,058 per pupil in FY2004, on FY1999 data. The Fair School Funding Plan’s own base cost is built on FY2018 inputs, refreshed once to FY2022 by H.B. 33 and then frozen there by H.B. 96 — the same practice of pricing a formula at a reference year and letting it age, two regimes apart. inference
44 budget lines name H.B. 95 in their legal_basis. verified
Properties Contents
| Designation | Am. Sub. H.B. 95 |
|---|---|
| General Assembly | 125th General Assembly |
| Signed | 2003-06-26 |
| Effective | 2003-09-26 |
| When each part took effect | Two dates, and effective above carries the codified one. Signed 26 June 2003, with the appropriation sections effective then; the codified amendments took effect on 26 September 2003, and some provisions on other dates. verified the legislature's version index This is the one budget act here dated from a single source: LSC's enrolled analysis is not at the path every other act's is. (LSC's enrolled analysis) |
| What it did | Enacted the FY2004-05 operating budget. Retained the successful-schools base cost method, the cost of doing business factor and the 23-mill local contribution unchanged; set the formula amount at $5,058 and $5,169 by inflating a FY1999-data figure at 2.8% a year; raised parity aid 59.2% and 33.1% and the special education weighted funding percentage to 88%. |
| Vetoes | Two, both small and both earmarks rather than mechanisms. verified the greenbook The Governor vetoed an earmark directing OhioReads grant recipients to use senior citizens as tutors, and an item requiring the Department of Job and Family Services to reserve $3.5 million of Workforce Investment Act funds for the Jobs for Ohio Graduates program and to enter an interagency agreement for it. LSC notes that both agencies already had discretion to do the second thing anyway. Nothing in this act's funding formula was vetoed, which is consistent with the rest of it: the formula is what this budget left alone. |
| Effect on accountability | The earliest point this corpus can evidence at which an Ohio rating determined a funding amount. Two appropriations, both paying to low-rated districts and both outside the formula: a set-aside of $3.7 million in FY2004 and $5.9 million in FY2005 for academic emergency districts to buy intervention services, distributed per pupil; and $4.6 million a year for professional development on the Ohio Graduation Test, as grants to districts in academic emergency. verified crates/project, rating_payments, pinned by testNeither is a formula component — this act's formula has no rating term in it, and would not until H.B. 119 four years later. The chronology of every such coupling is at Ohio report card. |
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 |
|---|---|
| Amends | Am. Sub. H.B. 94 (2001) — FY2002-03 Budget; the post-DeRolph II formula |
| Continues | Foundation Base Cost Formula |
| Follows | DeRolph v. State (DeRolph IV, 2002) |
| Appropriates for | FY2004-2005 Biennium |
| Sourced from | LSC Redbook — Ohio Department of Education and Workforce |
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: 2003-09-24, with no source recorded for it.
It says
effective: 2003-09-26, with the split recorded in effective_note.
Settled by
The legislature’s version index for H.B. 95 of the 125th, which dates the codified provisions “09/26/03”. The recorded date was ninety days after signing, and an Ohio act takes effect on the ninety-first day after it is filed, so it could not have been right on any filing date. inference
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.