The corpus › Formula Parameter
FSFP Phase-In Percentage
How far a district is moved from its FY2020 funding base toward the amount the plan computes for it. The plan was designed to reach full funding over six years, and each biennial budget since 2021 has set the percentage for its two fiscal years. verified
parameter/fsfp-phase-in-percentage · 21 nodes point here · 2 corrections
It is not a fraction of computed aid, and the difference is most of the mechanism Contents
R.C. 3317.022 pays
funding base
+ [(general components - general funding base) x general phase-in %]
+ [(DPIA - DPIA funding base) x DPIA phase-in %]
verified crates/project/fixtures/revised-code.txt, and the same box appears in the LSC
greenbook at crates/project/fixtures/dew-greenbook.txt The percentage is the weight on the
distance between two amounts, not a multiplier on one of them. At 0% a district receives its
whole FY2020 base; at 100% it receives the computed amount; in between it is somewhere on
the line joining them.
The origin and the guarantee’s floor are the same published column, [H2]. See
Guarantee Funding Base.
The full enacted series is close to equal sixths, but not exactly: 16.67, 33.33, 50, 66.67, 83.33, 100 across FY2022 through FY2027. verified the LSC greenbook prints the whole series as Table 1, and the H.B. 96 final analysis states the last two
Two details matter more than the headline series.
There are two percentages, and the statute writes two terms. In FY2022 the general percentage was 16.67% and Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid’s was 0%. verified The split is statutory rather than a departmental elaboration: R.C. 3317.022 brackets DPIA separately against its own base, and R.C. 3317.02(N)(2) anchors that base to the district’s FY2019 DPIA payment while the general base is FY2020.
A 0% DPIA phase-in paid DPIA in full at its FY2019 amount, not nothing. In FY2022 the districts DPIA serves kept their entire prior DPIA while every other line moved a sixth of the way toward a new one. Whether that left them ahead or behind depends on how the FY2022 computed DPIA compared with the FY2019 payment, district by district, and the FY2019 figures are not held here. open
What this repository computed Contents
Not what Ohio publishes. Figures derived here from committed fixtures, each one citing the test that reproduces it.
It is a hold-harmless being retired, not a tap being opened Contents
A district whose computed amount is below its FY2020 base — 294 of 609 in FY2027 — is moved down toward the formula as the percentage rises. For those districts a lower phase-in is worth more. The schedule that runs 16.67% to 100% is the sixfold retirement of a floor, and the plan’s own arrival at full funding is what removes the protection.
Reaching 100% does not mean reaching the plan Contents
H.B. 96 takes the phase-in to 100% in FY2027 while holding the cost inputs at FY2022 levels. verified the LSC greenbook states both The percentage and the input reference year are separate dials, and only one of them is usually named. See FSFP Base Cost Calculation.
Lowering it cannot push a district onto the guarantee Contents
The guarantee floors at the same FY2020 base the phase-in interpolates from, so a lower
percentage walks a district back toward the floor and stops there. Running the FY2027 panel
down the dial, the guarantee holds 294 districts at 100%, 293 at 50%, and none at 0% —
where the interpolation has already delivered the base to everyone and the only residual left
is the open enrollment clawback. verified crates/project/src/policy.rs
What the dial is worth Contents
Statewide, running from 100% to 0% moves realized aid from $7.28bn to $6.40bn — an $886m range, which is the aggregate distance between computed and base for the districts above theirs. That is the whole of what the phase-in decides, and it is an eighth of the aid it is usually described as governing. verified
The multiplier is checkable in FY2026 and nowhere else in this workspace Contents
The FY2027 panel is at 100%, where base + pct x (computed - base) collapses to computed and
a wrong multiplier is invisible — the panel would reproduce the department’s model under any
implementation that returned the computed amount. FY2026 is not at 100%, and the department’s
workbook publishes the base, the computed amount and the step as separate columns, so the weight
can be solved per district rather than read off the header cell that states it.
Solved that way it is 0.8333 on every one of the 610 districts whose span is wide enough to
divide — minimum, median and maximum identical. verified crates/project/tests/the_interpolation_the_terminal_year_cannot_show.rs, against
crates/project/fixtures/fy26-department-model.csv
That is what makes FY2026 worth carrying beyond its own year. FY2025’s report is on a different schedule and FY2027 has no such columns at all — at 100% the department dropped them, because the computed column is the funded column.
Properties Contents
| Name | FSFP phase-in percentage |
|---|---|
| Unit | percent |
| Kind | Uncodified. The percentages live in the uncodified sections of each biennial act — H.B. 110, H.B. 33, H.B. 96 — and not in R.C. 3317. verified The consequence is the one the category exists to make visible: there is no default. If a biennium passes without re-enacting a percentage, the phase-in has no value rather than reverting to its last one, and the schedule that runs 16.67% to 100% across six years is six separate decisions rather than one. |
| Values over time | |
FY2022 16.67% Am. Sub. H.B. 110 (134th GA) verified department payment report Applied to base cost, targeted assistance, special education, English learners, gifted, and career-technical. DPIA phased in at 0%. verified FY2023 33.33% Am. Sub. H.B. 110 (134th GA) verified greenbook Table 1 FY2024 50% Am. Sub. H.B. 33 (135th GA) verified greenbook Table 1 FY2025 66.67% Am. Sub. H.B. 33 (135th GA) verified greenbook Table 1 FY2026 83.33% Am. Sub. H.B. 96 (136th GA) verified greenbook Table 1; H.B. 96 final analysis, "school financing system calculation revisions" item 1 FY2027 100% Am. Sub. H.B. 96 (136th GA) verified the same two, and the department's FY27 model carries "General Phase in %" = 1FY2022 is verified against the FY2022 School Finance Payment Report line-by-line explanation, which states the applied percentages by line. The rest were carried as [inference] from secondary reporting for several phases while two committed fixtures stated them outright: crates/project/fixtures/dew-greenbook.txt prints the whole series as Table 1, and crates/project/fixtures/enacted-school-funding.txt gives the last two in the act's own list of changes.The DPIA percentage tracks the general one from FY2023. Greenbook Table 1's footnote: "DPIA was phased in at 0% in FY 2022, but matches the phase-in percentage for all other components beginning in FY 2023." verified So FY2022 is the only year the two dials differ, and the H.B. 96 final analysis names them together — "the general phase-in and DPIA phase-in percentages" move as one to 83.33% and 100%. | |
| Statutory basis | Set in each biennial appropriation act rather than in permanent law, which is itself the structural fact this node records. verified The FY2022 percentages appear in the uncodified sections of Am. Sub. H.B. 110 rather than in R.C. 3317. |
| Simulation key | fsfp_phase_in_pct |
| Sensitivity | It does not scale aid — it moves each district along the line between its FY2020 funding base and its computed amount, so its effect on a district is the distance between those two numbers rather than a fraction of either. A district already near its base barely moves; a district far above it moves a great deal. That makes the incidence close to the opposite of what a multiplier would produce. Statewide, running the FY2027 panel from 100% down to 0% moves realized aid from $7.28bn to $6.40bn — an $886m range, which is the aggregate gap between computed and base for the districts above theirs. A multiplier reading of the same dial produced $4.21bn at 50% against the $6.84bn the statute gives. verified crates/project/src/policy.rsDistricts already held by the guarantee are insulated, and so are districts whose computed amount is below their base, because the interpolation keeps them there: the phase-in and the guarantee floor at the same FY2020 column. Lowering the percentage therefore reduces the number of districts the guarantee has to pay rather than raising it. |
Where this appears on the site Contents
The pages outside the corpus that link here, and the section of each the link sits in.
| What changed | In “The phase-in”. |
|---|
Links Contents
| Instance of | Formula Parameter |
|---|---|
| Valued in | Fiscal Year 2026 |
| Valued in | FY2026-27 Biennium |
| Scales | Base Cost Per Pupil |
| Sourced from | School Finance Payment Report — Line by Line Explanation |
| Sourced from | LSC Budget Analysis — H.B. 96 (FY2026-27) |
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 2
It said
The percentage was defined as “the fraction of the Fair School Funding Plan’s computed formula amount that is actually appropriated”, and the FY2022 DPIA figure was read as a shortfall: high-poverty districts “received a smaller effective fraction than the headline number implies. Any statement that FY2022 was ‘funded at 16.67%’ is wrong for the districts DPIA exists to serve.”
It says
It is an interpolation weight, not a multiplier. R.C. 3317.022 pays the FY2020 funding base plus that fraction of the distance to the computed amount, so 0% pays the base in full rather than nothing — and the FY2022 reading inverts: those districts kept their whole FY2019 DPIA while every other line moved a sixth of the way to a new figure.
Settled by
Reading R.C. 3317.022 in crates/project/fixtures/revised-code.txt, which had been
committed for phases, against the calculator this node’s series was transcribed from. The
LSC greenbook prints the same formula in a box.
What else it touched
The definition had propagated into crates/project/src/policy.rs, its TypeScript mirror,
the scenario page’s two lever notes, and the regime node’s distribution_logic. All of
them modeled the dial as computed x pct, which understated statewide aid by $2.57bn at
50% — and, because the panel’s terminal year is FY2027 at 100%, every identity test passed
throughout: the two formulations agree exactly where the fixture sits.
Correction 2 of 2
It said
The series carried FY2023 through FY2026 as [inference] from secondary reporting, with
“whether the DPIA percentage tracks the general percentage in later years is not
established and matters” left [open].
It says
Every year is [verified], and DPIA has matched the general percentage since FY2023.
Settled by
Greenbook Table 1 and its footnote, and the H.B. 96 final analysis — both already committed
under crates/project/fixtures/.
What else it touched
The same stale tags sat on the regime node and the H.B. 96 node. It is the failure the guarantee node’s own revision names: a recorded blocker outliving the fixture that lifted it, because nothing re-reads a source once a claim has been written against it.