Ohio Revised Code — the sections this corpus cites
ohio-revised-code · cited by 22 nodes
Source. Ohio General Assembly, via the Legislative Service Commission’s codes.ohio.gov.
Type. Primary source — the law itself, published by the body that writes it.
Location. codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-<number>, one page per section.
What it contains. The current text of each section, its effective date, and the act that last amended it. The sections retrieved include the Chapter 3317 foundation program sections the formula components rest on, the Chapter 3310 scholarship sections, R.C. 319.301 for H.B. 920 and the twenty-mill floor, R.C. 5705.391 for the five-year forecast, the Chapter 5753 casino sections, R.C. 3302.01, 3302.03, 3302.10 and 3302.12 for the report card and the academic distress commission, and R.C. 5747.73 for the scholarship donation credit.
This entry said “fourteen” for as long as the extract held fourteen, and kept saying it through
three additions; it then said “thirty-five” while the extract held forty-three. The list is the record and the count is not: the registry names the sections and
crates/project/tests/the_statute_behind_the_weights.rs
asserts the extract holds those and no others, which is a check the number above cannot be.
The recorded blocker was a statement about a convenience, not about the data. This connector
sat Declared since genesis on “codes.ohio.gov serves HTML with no bulk export; section history
is rendered rather than published as data.” The first clause is true and was read as though it
meant the text was unreachable. It is server-rendered: the operative text is in the response
body of a plain curl. The second clause remains true, and the corpus takes the current text and
its effective date rather than attempting a version series.
What it settled that nothing else could. Every weight in the formula had been transcribed from
the department’s spreadsheet and confirmed against the department’s own published amounts — which
is a check that the department is self-consistent, not that it is following the law. Against
statute, all fourteen multiples match to the last digit: six special education, three English
learner, five career-technical. See
crates/project/tests/the_statute_behind_the_weights.rs.
It also answered four questions the corpus had recorded as open, and corrected one citation:
- the clinical categories behind the special education weights, which R.C. 3317.013 names;
- what the English learner taper actually tracks — time enrolled in United States schools and attainment of a proficient score, per R.C. 3317.016;
- the career-technical program categories, which R.C. 3317.014 lists by name;
- where the squaring in the disadvantaged-pupil index comes from — R.C. 3317.02(I)(1)(a), which the DPIA node had recorded as “not located in statute here”;
- and R.C. 3317.029 does not exist. The DPIA node cited it. The program is R.C. 3317.022(A)(4).
How it is read. connect::html — a text extractor rather than an HTML parser, because nothing
here wants a tree. It drops <script> and <style> with their contents, treats block tags as line
breaks and inline tags as transparent, and resolves the entities the site emits. The inline
distinction matters more than it sounds: a cross-reference is marked up as
section <a>3317.011</a> of the Revised Code, and breaking on every tag makes that unsearchable.
Vintage risk. Sections carry an effective date and most of these read September 30, 2025 — H.B. 96 of the 136th General Assembly, the current budget. A future budget rewrites them at the same URLs. The digest manifest is what detects it, and the weight-verification test is what makes a silent divergence between statute and the committed weights fail loudly.
Caveat. The fixture is the current text. Any claim in the corpus about an earlier regime — the charge-off era above all — cannot be sourced from here, because the archive begins at 1 July 2014 and the mechanism was already gone. Those claims still rest on the opinions and on session law.