The corpus › Formula Parameter

Enrollment Supplement Amounts

$40 a pupil to every district and $250 a pupil to the 43 that grew more than 3%, neither rate in any section of the Revised Code. The 3% is a cliff: the nearest miss cost $430,477.

parameter/enrolment-supplement-amounts · 3 nodes point here

Two supplements paid on the same sheet and sharing nothing but their line numbers.

The base funding supplement is $40 per pupil, to every district, with no test. $56.1m statewide across 609 districts, a mean of $92,085 each. Nothing has to be true of a district to receive it. verified

The enrollment growth supplement is $250 per pupil, to districts whose enrollment grew more than 3%. $39.4m statewide to 43 districts, a mean of $915,804 each — ten times the base supplement’s per-district amount, concentrated in 7% of districts. verified

Neither rate, nor the 3% threshold, is in R.C. 3317.022 or in any other section of the Revised Code. They are reported as lines [L] and [M], and their authority is the budget act’s temporary law — H.B. 96 of the 136th General Assembly — which codes.ohio.gov does not carry and which lapses with the biennium unless re-enacted. 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 3% is a cliff, and the corpus can price the edge of it Contents

The growth supplement pays $250 on the district’s whole enrollment, not on the growth above the threshold. So a district at 3.01% growth receives $250 a pupil across every pupil and a district at 2.99% receives nothing.

The nearest miss cost $430,477, and 3 other districts sit between 2.7% and 3% growth. verified crates/project

A taper would have made the same total payment a continuous function of growth; a cliff makes it a step, and the step is where the money is largest relative to the difference in circumstances. inference

The cliff replaced a taper, and Ohio ran the taper for two years Contents

The growth supplement is not new and its first version was the continuous one. Am. Sub. H.B. 166 created it for FY2020-21 and paid “each school district with a student enrollment of at least 50 that experienced an average annual percentage change in its enrollment between FY 2016 and FY 2019 that is greater than zero” — the payment being that percentage times 100 times FY2019 enrollment times $20 in FY2020 and $30 in FY2021. So the amount rose continuously with growth and the eligibility test was zero rather than 3 per cent. verified crates/project

That makes the cliff a choice rather than the only shape the payment has taken. The paragraph above prices the edge of the current threshold; the earlier version had no edge to price.

And between the two versions the answer is zero Contents

ALI 200636 carried $15,500,000 in FY2020 and $23,000,000 in FY2021 and was then cut to $0 in both years of the budget that enacted the Fair School Funding Plan. The unfilled: asking for the FY2022-25 values was asking for a rate that did not exist: the payment was abolished, not reduced. verified

What survived is the last year of it, made permanent. The formula transition supplement adds each district’s FY2021 enrollment growth supplement to the floor it holds them at, and H.B. 33 carries the same clause into FY2024-25 — so the FY2021 payment is still in the base two bienniums after the program ended. A district that grew in 2019 is funded for it in 2025. verified

The $40 is a twenty-year-old name and a twenty-year-old amount Contents

“Base funding supplement” was the FY2006 formula’s term for four itemized additions to base cost, each tied to a named service — academic intervention $25.00, professional development $3.50, data-based decision making $5.28, and professional development in data-based decision making $6.22. They add to $40.00 a pupil. They rose to $47.99 in FY2007 and to $50.91 by FY2009, where H.B. 1 froze them; the name then disappears with the H.B. 59 formula and returns in this biennium. verified

So the current $40 is the FY2006 total, twenty years on, for a payment that no longer says what it buys. Whether the amount was chosen with the old schedule in view is not established, and the coincidence is worth recording either way: the old supplement was four claims about what districts needed money for, and the new one is one number with no claim attached. verified the series inference the reading

They run against the direction of the panel Contents

The median district’s enrollment fell 4.8% over the three years the supplement measures. So a supplement written to reward growth reaches a seventh of districts in a state where most are shrinking, and the base supplement — flat, universal, and a sixth the size per district — is what the other 566 get. verified

Properties Contents

NameEnrollment supplement amounts
Unitdollars-per-pupil
KindUncodified. Not in R.C. 3317.022, which assembles core foundation funding, and not in any other section this corpus cites. The statute audit searched them all.

The authority is the budget act's temporary law. That has three consequences a codified parameter does not have: the text is not on codes.ohio.gov, so a reader cannot look it up the way they can look up a special education multiple; there is no version archive, so the prior biennium's value is not retrievable by the same route; and the payment ends with the biennium by default rather than by repeal.

The last of those turns out to be less distinctive than it looks. Almost every codified parameter in the plan also ends with the biennium — R.C. 3317.017 and 3317.0217 apply only to FY2026-27 by their own terms, and forty divisions elsewhere hand FY2028 to the General Assembly. So what separates uncodified from codified here is retrievability, not durability, which is not the distinction the four-kind taxonomy was drawn to make. See the four kinds of parameter.
Values over time
FY2027, from the department's calculator:
  $40     base funding supplement, per pupil, every district        line [L]
  $250    enrollment growth supplement, per pupil, whole enrollment   line [M]
  3%      three-year enrollment growth threshold for [M]
Scale, from the committed panel. verified crates/project
  base funding supplement, statewide      $56,079,575.54
  per district                                $92,084.69
  growth supplement, statewide            $39,379,553.15
  districts drawing it                                43
  per district that draws it                 $915,803.56
  the largest forgone growth supplement       $430,476.80
  median three-year enrollment change              −4.84%
What the same two lines were before, from the committed LSC analyses: verified
  FY2006  $40.00  base funding supplements, four of them, itemized by service
  FY2007  $47.99  the same four
  FY2009  $50.91  and frozen there through FY2011
  FY2014  —       the H.B. 59 formula drops the term entirely
  FY2020  $20     enrollment growth supplement, per pupil per point of average annual growth
  FY2021  $30     the same taper, admitting every district that grew at all
  FY2022  $0      ALI 200636 cut to nothing; the FY2021 payment frozen into the guarantee
  FY2026  $27     base funding supplement, flat, unitemized, every district
  FY2027  $40     the same, raised
  FY2026  $225    enrollment growth supplement returns, at a 5% growth threshold
  FY2027  $250    the same, raised, at a 3% threshold
The FY2026 row read $40 and that is the FY2027 amount. H.B. 96's own analysis states the pair in one sentence — "$27 per pupil in FY 2026 and $40 per pupil in FY 2027" — and the department's FY2026 calculator says $27 on the cell its FY2027 calculator says $40 on. Two independent sources, one vintage error. verified crates/project

These two are the only per-pupil rates in the plan that rose. Read every statewide scalar both calculators state — 35 of them — and 25 hold to the digit across the two years: all six special education weights, all five career-technical weights, all three English learner weights, the $8,241.61 average base cost, the $9,855.62 career-technical one, the $422 DPIA amount, the $13 performance supplement. The 10 that moved are every one downstream of a count or a valuation, plus these two. verified

Two of the twenty-five hold for a different reason and are worth naming as such: targeted assistance's "excluding North and Middle Bass" medians are not values the department recomputed and found unchanged, they are values nothing recomputes. See FSFP Targeted Assistance. verified
And the growth supplement loosened while it rose. FY2026 pays $225 to a district whose
enrolled ADM grew 5% between FY2022 and FY2025; FY2027 pays $250 at 3% between FY2023 and
FY2026 — a higher rate on an easier test, which the act's own analysis prices at $22.9m for
22 districts and then $45.0m for 40. The calculator carries an EGS pct cell reading 1 in
both years; it is not that threshold, and what it governs is not established. open
  FY2026  $250    growth supplement, on the whole enrollment, past a 3% threshold
Statutory basisNone. Not in R.C. 3317.022 and not in any other section this corpus cites; the two rates and the threshold are transcribed from the calculator, where they appear as lines [L] and [M]. The authority is H.B. 96's temporary law. verified the statute audit
Simulation keyproject::panel::supplements::BASE_FUNDING_SUPPLEMENT_PER_PUPIL, ENROLLMENT_GROWTH_SUPPLEMENT_PER_PUPIL and ENROLLMENT_GROWTH_THRESHOLD.

Constants, no lever.
Written in formulas as
  • base funding supplement
  • growth supplement
SensitivityThe $40 is the most linear parameter in the plan: it multiplies enrollment and nothing else, so its cost is exactly $40 times statewide ADM and its distribution is exactly the distribution of pupils.

The $250 is the least. Its cost depends on which districts clear 3%, which depends on a three-year enrollment trend, so a forecast of the supplement is a forecast of the growth distribution rather than of a rate. Moving the threshold is a far larger lever than moving the rate: the four districts between 2.7% and 3.0% would together draw about a million dollars from a threshold change that costs nothing per pupil. inference

Neither responds to wealth, poverty, or state share. Both are paid gross. verified

What this node does not hold Contents

the enrolled act's text and division — H.B. 96's temporary law is where these live and `codes.ohio.gov` does not carry it. The enrolled act as published by the General Assembly is the source that would fix the division and the exact wording of the 3% test.

whether the $40 was chosen against the FY2006 schedule — The two amounts are the same and twenty years apart, and no analysis this corpus holds connects them. The Fair School Funding Plan workgroup's materials, or the enrolled act's own drafting history, would settle whether the figure was carried or arrived at again.