Typology of Ohio School Districts — the department's own similar-district grouping

Source. Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, 2013 School District Typology. Type. Primary source, published by the classifying body. The file is the assignment, not a description of one. Location. https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/Frequently-Requested-Data/Typology-of-Ohio-School-Districts/2013-School-District-Typology.xlsx.aspx. 79 KB, two sheets, retrievable by a self-identifying agent with no credentials. Registered as district-typology-2013 and pinned by SHA-256.

What it contains. The Typology By District sheet assigns 614 districts a code, keyed on IRN, and carries the four measures the assignment was made on: enrollment, median household income, student poverty and percent minority. The second sheet lists five exemplar districts per code and is editorial illustration — every district on it is already on the first.

Why it matters here. education-agency.ont.yml has declared a typology property since the ontology was written, and not one agency node could fill it. Five nodes characterize their district in prose and then record the code itself as unfilled: — “Rural, high poverty. Exact department typology code not yet entered.” .yidam/skills/scenario-delta.md states the cost plainly: “Typology is not an available axis”, tagged [open]. And Fordham Institute — "Ohio House puts the brakes on Cupp-Patterson" warns that assessed valuation per pupil is the nearest proxy the corpus holds and it is not the department’s typology. This is the source those four entries were waiting for.

Eight codes, and they are ordered by urbanicity rather than by poverty # ↑ Contents

Code	Category	Districts
0	Removed from the analysis	5
1	Rural — High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	124
2	Rural — Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	107
3	Small Town — Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	111
4	Small Town — High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89
5	Suburban — Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77
6	Suburban — Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46
7	Urban — High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47
8	Urban — Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8

The sequence is not a poverty ranking, and reading it as one is the error this table exists to prevent. The department orders the codes by a location composite — least urban to most — and poverty is the secondary term inside each locale. So median student poverty runs 46.4% at code 1, 36.7% at 2, 29.0% at 3, and then back up to 51.5% at code 4, above codes 1, 2, 3 and 5 alike. A chart banding districts 1→8 on an ordered ramp would be asserting a monotone that four of the eight steps break. verified

The vintage is eleven years old, and the file says so itself # ↑ Contents

The scheme was established in 1996, revised in 2007 for the 2000 census, and revised again in 2013 for the 2010 one. Nothing has revised it since. The workbook’s own docProps/core.xml gives dcterms:modified as 6 January 2015, which corroborates the page’s “amended January 2015” to the month and means the file has been untouched for eleven years. verified

That is a fact about the department rather than a defect here, and it has one consequence worth stating in every place this data is used: a district coded High Student Poverty was one in 2013. The classification is current — it is the assignment in force — but the measures behind it are not. This is why the extract carries all four of them under _2013 names: a reader can set student_poverty_2013 beside the report card’s current share and see the drift rather than having to assume it away.

Code zero is five districts the department declines to classify # ↑ Contents

College Corner Local, Kelleys Island Local, Middle Bass Local, North Bass Local and Put-In-Bay Local — three islands, a border district and a second island — are coded 0, which the methodology calls removed from the analysis. They are the only five rows with any suppressed measure, and the suppression is total for the two Bass Island districts: enrollment, income, poverty and minority share all read N/A. verified

Three of the five are in this repository’s FY2027 panel; Middle Bass and North Bass are not, and that pair is the subject of its own finding on Fair School Funding Plan.

Worth recording that the department reached the same conclusion about Kelleys Island Local — four pupils — that this repository’s own charting had to reach from the other direction: its per-pupil figures are a different kind of quantity, and a scale fitted to them describes one island rather than a state. inference

It joins this repository’s panel exactly # ↑ Contents

All 609 districts in the FY2027 panel carry a typology code. Not one is missing. The file’s five surplus rows are districts that have closed or merged since 2013 — Bettsville Local, Ledgemont Local, Newbury Local, and the two Bass Island districts — which is the expected shape of an eleven-year-old roster against a current one, and is the reverse of the failure mode that would matter. verified

Of the 609: 3 at code 0, 123 at 1, 106 at 2, 110 at 3, 89 at 4, 77 at 5, 46 at 6, 47 at 7, 8 at 8.

What it is not # ↑ Contents

It is not a locale code. NCES publishes an urban-centric locale (ULOCAL) for every district and this is not that — it is Ohio’s own composite, built from a location score crossed with poverty and enrollment size. The two are not interchangeable and neither derives the other.

It is also not the CUPP similar-district grouping. The CUPP profile reports a district’s similar-district averages and never names the group, so the two files are complements: one says which group, the other says what the group looks like.