Title I, Part A

It is allocated on a different poverty measure than Ohio’s. Title I formulas run on Census Bureau small-area income and poverty estimates of children aged 5–17 in families below the poverty line. Ohio’s disadvantaged pupil impact aid runs on the department’s “economically disadvantaged” count, whose definition R.C. 3317.03(B)(21) delegates to the department, constrained only by “shall not be categorically excluded … based on anything other than family income”. verified Two compensatory channels, two poverty definitions, and no reason for them to identify the same children. How far the two counts diverge for a given district is not established here. open

Four sub-formulas, not one, and they behave differently: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants. The last reaches back into state policy, and what it reaches for is dispersion: it prices how widely per-pupil spending varies among a state’s own districts, and pays a wider-spread state less per child. Ohio’s spread ranks 9 of 51 and costs it 3.55% of its per-child rate against a median jurisdiction, every year. verified crates/dispersion/src/equity_factor.rs

The size of the channel is only measurable through the Census F-33, not through any Title I file: Ohio districts received $2,466 per pupil in all federal revenue in FY2022, against a national $2,493, which is 13.87% of Ohio school revenue and ranks Ohio 25th of 51. verified crates/dispersion/src/census_states.rs Title I is the largest component of that, but the F-33 does not decompose it, so no Title I figure for Ohio or for any district is entered 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.

The sub-formula that prices Ohio’s own dispersion # ↑ Contents

This node recorded that the Education Finance Incentive Grant “weights allocations by a state’s own equity and effort, so Ohio’s local-reliance position affects what Ohio receives”, and left the materiality open. The premise names the wrong quantity, and the question has an answer.

Local reliance does not enter this formula anywhere. 20 U.S.C. 6337 multiplies a state’s per-formula-child amount by two factors and neither is about the state-and-local split. The effort factor is per-pupil expenditure over per-capita income, relative to the national ratio — total spending against ability to pay. The equity factor is the enrollment-weighted coefficient of variation of per-pupil expenditure across the state’s own local education agencies, counting only agencies enrolling more than 200 pupils. Ohio raising 51.8% of school revenue locally is invisible to both. verified 20 U.S.C. 6337(b)

The equity factor is a statistic this repository already computed. It is the same coefficient of variation quoted in every equity finding here — and until now that number had nothing to be read against, because Ohio describing itself cannot say whether Ohio is unusual. Computed for all 51 jurisdictions off the Census Bureau’s FY2022 district file, Ohio’s factor is 0.1987 and ranks 9 of 51, against a median jurisdiction at 0.1582. Only Alaska, Massachusetts, Vermont, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, New York and South Dakota spread wider. verified crates/dispersion/src/equity_factor.rs

It enters the allocation twice, in opposite directions. The state’s per-child rate is 1.30 minus its factor, so a wider-spread state is paid less per child; and the within-state poverty ladder steepens in three bands at 0.10 and 0.20, so a wider-spread state’s money concentrates harder on its poorest counties — the top rung is 4.0, 6.0 or 8.0 by band. Congress prices dispersion as a fault and then treats the same number as grounds to redistribute inside the state. verified 20 U.S.C. 6337(b)

Material on the rate, and never once on the band # ↑ Contents

Ohio’s spread costs it 3.55% of its per-formula-child rate against a median jurisdiction, and 8.23% against a state held at the 0.10 cap. That is a standing reduction, in force every year, priced on exactly the dispersion Equity is about. verified crates/dispersion/src/equity_factor.rs

The band is the other half and the answer there is no. Ohio is the closest state in the country to the 0.20 edge — 0.0013 below it, nearer than every state but Washington, which sits at the other edge — and it is below. The one statutory step the fixture cannot reproduce is the 1.4 weight on a poverty child, and it can be bounded rather than guessed: over-applied to Ohio’s economically disadvantaged count, roughly three times the Census poverty count, the factor falls to 0.1684. The true value lies in that interval and the whole interval is inside the middle band. verified crates/dispersion/src/equity_factor.rs

The measurement is the statute’s, not a choice: unweighted, Ohio’s districts spread at 0.1779 and nothing here would be close to an edge. The statute weights by pupils served, and Ohio’s large districts are its extreme ones. verified crates/dispersion

What remains open is the effort factor. No fixture here carries state personal income, so it is not computed — though the statute bounds it to 0.95 and 1.05, which caps its whole range at a tenth of the rate against a ladder that at 0.20 doubles the top rung. open

The equitable-services share, and why it is not held # ↑ Contents

Title I has its own set-aside for private school pupils, and it is the third federal channel that reaches chartered nonpublic schools, beside Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools and the IDEA proportionate share. A district must provide eligible private school children “on an equitable basis” with services “after timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials”. The money for them “shall be equal to the proportion of funds allocated to participating school attendance areas based on the number of children from low-income families who attend private schools”. That share is taken from the district’s whole allocation “prior to any allowable expenditures or transfers”. verified 20 U.S.C. 6320(a)(1), (a)(4)(A)

Like the IDEA share, it stays with a public agency: “the control of funds provided under this part, and title to materials, equipment, and property purchased with such funds, shall be in a public agency”. verified 20 U.S.C. 6320(d)(1) So it sits beside Category 3, and adding it would describe a payment to private schools that the statute forbids. inference Unlike the IDEA share, no amount is held. The statute requires the state to give private school officials “notice in a timely manner” of each district’s allocation for these services, so the amounts exist. verified 20 U.S.C. 6320(a)(4)(C) No source here retrieves them, and the department’s Title I files that are held, the formula counts behind the EdChoice designation, carry counts and shares and no dollars. verified title1-formula-counts.csv