Career-Technical Category Multiples

Five multiples, one per approved program category, and a sixth for associated services: 0.6230, 0.5905, 0.2154, 0.1830, 0.1570, and 0.0294. verified R.C. 3317.014(A) and (B)

They descend by program type, not by severity. Special education’s six ascend with the disability; these five sort programs. The top two are workforce development grouped by field — agricultural and environmental systems, construction technologies, engineering and science technologies, finance, health science, information technology and manufacturing at 0.6230; business and administration, hospitality and tourism, human services, law and public safety, transportation systems and arts and communications at 0.5905. The gap below them, to 0.2154, is not a further grade of workforce program: it is career-based intervention, a different kind of thing. verified the section

Why the first field group is priced above the second, both being full workforce programs, is not stated in the section. open

The multiplicand is not the one the other weight schedules use. These five multiply a statewide average career-technical base cost per pupil of $9,855.62, where special education and English learners multiply $8,241.61 — a base 19.6% higher before any weight applies. That is the General Assembly’s construction and not a departmental convenience: the section says each category is multiplied by “the statewide average career-technical base cost per pupil for that fiscal year”. verified

The associated-services multiple is the odd one. 0.0294 applies to the sum of categories one through five rather than to any category, so it is the one part of the program that does not vary with which category a pupil is in. verified

What this repository computed # ↑ Contents

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

The section prices a third thing, and it is missing for a reason that is not the rate # ↑ Contents

R.C. 3317.014(E)(1)(a) pays the lead district of each career technical planning district $3 times the summed enrolled ADM of every district and school in that planning district, for career awareness and exploration. It is a statutory per-pupil rate in the same section as the six multiples, and no crate models it: no component, no constant, no column in the committed FY2027 calculator extract. verified the section; and searched

It is absent from the calculator and present in the payment report, which is none of the three possibilities an earlier reading of this node offered. Both cached workbooks were searched whole this time — every string of every sheet rather than the columns the extract reads — and neither holds the words: 2,936 strings over 32 sheets in the FY2027 workbook and 2,320 over 28 in the FY2026 one, with no occurrence of aware, explor, planning, CTPD or lead district in either, the sole match on the first of those being Delaware. The department’s line-by-line explanation of the payment report then states the formula outright, on the Other Adjustments report under “Career Technical Planning District Payment”: Career Awareness and Exploration Funding = $3 * Enrolled ADM of member schools and districts. verified crates/project/fixtures/dew-sfpr-line-by-line.txt, and both cached workbooks

The membership is published, and the population is not the panel # ↑ Contents

The base is “Enrolled ADM of member schools and districts”, and who those members are had been recorded here as unpublished — one portal gone from DNS, another returning an application shell for every path. A third publishes it. The report card’s data API returns each planning district’s roster, and the FY2025 membership of all 90 rated planning districts is committed: 954 members, every one of the 607 districts placed in exactly one, cross-checked against the ctpdIrn each district’s own record states. verified Career-Technical Planning District Membership, crates/dispersion/src/ctpd_membership.rs

The other two of the 92 are the correctional institutions, which return HTTP 204 and are rated by nobody; 90 + 2 is the table’s 92, which settles the count the CTPD catalog entry recorded as a legend disagreeing with itself. verified

347 of the 954 members are not districts — community schools under R.C. Chapter 3314 and STEM schools under Chapter 3326. So the statute’s population is the 609-district panel plus a second one, which this corpus had asserted and can now measure: 36.4% of the membership. verified crates/dispersion/src/ctpd_membership.rs

On the published measure that second population is far smaller than its member count suggests, and the two numbers say different things. Against 4.75% of career-technical enrollment, 277 of the 347 carry none at all — the non-district membership is mostly organizations affiliated with a planning district that send nobody through it, and one e-school, Ohio Virtual Academy, is 44% of what the rest contribute. verified crates/dispersion/src/ctpd_membership.rs

This does not make the payment computable, and the reason has changed. It was a missing map; it is now a missing measure. The API publishes enrlCtpd, career-technical enrollment, and the statute pays on enrolled ADM — a superset, and not a constant fraction of it across two populations that differ this much. A per-CTPD base computed from the published column would be a different quantity wearing the statute’s name. inference

The two facts are one fact. The calculator simulates the foundation formula, and this is not foundation funding: it is an earmark of GRF line item 200545, Career-Technical Education Enhancements — whose legal basis the redbook gives as R.C. 3317.014 together with Sections 265.10 and 265.260 of H.B. 33 — and not of 200550, Foundation Funding. The omission is a boundary between two appropriations rather than a gap in anyone’s model, and this repository already reads across it: fixtures/appropriation-lines.csv carries 200545’s totals back to FY1999. verified dew-redbook.txt, dew-greenbook.txt

So the money can be stated rather than estimated, and the cut is bigger than the rate. The earmark falls from $16,255,125 actually spent in FY2025 to $5,000,000 appropriated in each of FY2026 and FY2027. The executive budget had proposed $16,325,000 for both years at an unchanged $10 per pupil, so the reduction is the General Assembly’s rather than the Governor’s — a distinction the enacted-act summary, which lists only the rate, does not carry. The rate’s own history is in the same sources, in five editions: $2.50 in FY2022, $5.00 in FY2023, $7.50 in FY2024, $10 in FY2025, $3 in FY2026 and FY2027. verified

Its recipient is a population nothing here names, and the roster is not the obstacle # ↑ Contents

Placing the payment on a district needs two tables: which schools belong to each planning district, and which district leads it. The second is published. The department’s CTPD table gives each planning district’s lead by name and by IRN, with its county, its city and whether it is a comprehensive district, a JVSD, a compact or a correctional institution — 92 rows, keyed on the identifier this panel already uses, against a legend on the same page whose own total reads 91. verified

The first is not. That table names leads and not members; the portal that published the member rosters no longer resolves in DNS; and the report card site returns one identical shell for every path, /robots.txt included, so a 200 from it is not evidence that a route exists. verified

Whether a membership roster is published anywhere else has not been established — three places were tried and the negative result from the third is not a result. It is a live question rather than a settled absence. open

What membership actually costs is narrower than it looks, because the department says that “every school district belongs to or serves as a Career Technical Planning District”. A population with no non-members sums to the whole, so the statewide figure needs no roster — it is the rate times statewide enrolled ADM, and the greenbook already states it. Only attribution to a recipient needs membership, and only a lever moving money between districts would need that. inference on a sentence that is the department’s own

All six are the FY2017 amounts over one divisor, and that divisor is not published # ↑ Contents

Before FY2022 each category carried a per-pupil amount: $4,750 down to $1,200 in FY2014, with $225 for associated services, raised 4 per cent a year to FY2017 and then held — H.B. 49 says career-technical amounts “remain unchanged from those used in FY 2017”, and the Bridge formula computed no categoricals at all. Divide each FY2017 amount by the weight that replaced it and all six give the same number, $8,333, to a few parts in ten thousand. That is the rounding of a four-decimal weight, not the residue of six separate decisions: this schedule was converted, not repriced. verified crates/project

The divisor is worth its own line because nothing states it. These weights multiply the career-technical base cost, which R.C. 3317.014 names and does not compute and which LSC’s analysis defines only by cross-reference to the JVSD figure. So $8,333 is what the plan’s own arithmetic says the FY2022 career-technical base cost was, recovered from the schedule rather than read anywhere — and against the $7,202 general base cost of the same year that is a premium of 15.7%, where FY2027’s is 19.6%. The gap between the two bases has widened by four percentage points and no source in this corpus announces it. verified the arithmetic inference the widening being unannounced

And the whole schedule is written for two years # ↑ Contents

Divisions (C)(2), (D)(2) and (E)(1)(b) each say that for fiscal year 2028 and thereafter the amount is “calculated in a manner determined by the general assembly”. So the multiples above are the FY2026-27 schedule and the section states no successor — which makes any projection past FY2027 a projection under a rule the statute does not carry that far. The scenario runner projects to FY2032 and FY2036. verified the section, and crates/bundle/src/build.rs

(A)(1)  0.6230  workforce development: agriculture and environmental systems, construction
                technologies, engineering and science technologies, finance, health science,
                information technology, manufacturing technologies
(A)(2)  0.5905  workforce development: business and administration, hospitality and tourism,
                human services, law and public safety, transportation systems, arts and
                communications
(A)(3)  0.2154  career-based intervention
(A)(4)  0.1830  workforce development: education and training, marketing, workforce
                development academics, public administration, career development
(A)(5)  0.1570  family and consumer science
(B)     0.0294  associated services, against the sum of categories one to five