Wednesday, May 13, 2026
  1. HB 82: Report Card Changes for the 2021–22 School Year
  2. Analysis of November 2025 School Levy Results
  3. Analysis of Ohio Residential Property Taxes: A Balanced Approach to Reform
  4. Ohio Economically Disadvantaged Cost Study
  5. OEPI Analysis of Property Tax Provisions in the FY26–27 State Budget
  6. Revenue Generated by Emergency & Substitute Levies
  7. Impact of the Proposed Elimination of Inside Millage
  8. OEPI Analysis of the Impact of Eliminating Inside Millage
  9. Dr. Fleeter’s Testimony on HB 96 (Senate Education Committee)
  10. Ohio Property Tax Trends (1975-2023)
  11. State Share of Base Cost Funding FY99-FY19
  12. Dr. Fleeter’s Testimony on HB 96 (House Education Committee)
  13. Factors Behind the Transitional Aid Guarantee
  14. OEPI Analysis of Administrator Data
  15. OEPI Initial Analysis of Executive Budget K-12 Funding Proposal
  16. OEPI Analysis of Cupp Report Administrator Data
  17. OEPI Analysis of K-12 Budget Proposal
  18. OEPI Review of Ohio School Finance Study
  19. November 2024 School Levies Overview
  20. OEPI’s Ohio Special Ed Cost Analysis
  21. Ohio Property Tax Reappraisal Trends
  22. FY24 vs FY25 State Foundation Funding Comparison
  23. 2003-2023 Ohio Property Tax Reappraisal Analysis
  24. FY24 vs. FY25 School Funding Comparison
  25. Testimony on Property Tax Review and Reform
  26. Ohio School Funding Summary from FY11-FY24
  27. Dr. Fleeter on 10WBSN’s Report on Ohio Sports Gaming Revenue
  28. Dr. Fleeter’s Summary of Replacement Levy Utilization by Ohio School Districts (2014–2023)
  29. Ohio Property Tax Trends (1975–2022)
  30. OEPI HB 920: Updated Explanation
  31. Ohio School Voucher Overview
  32. Overview of Senate FY24–25 State Budget
  33. Constructing an Adequate School Funding Formula
  34. Summary of LSC HB 1 Fiscal Note
  35. House Bill 1 Summary & Analysis
  36. OEPI Economically Disadvantaged Student Cost Study
  37. Ohio Gifted Education Incentives Study
  38. Ohio Educational Service Center Cost Study
  39. Ohio English Learner Cost Study
  40. Ohio Gifted Funding Accountability Study
  41. Ohio Special Ed Cost Study
  42. New vs. Renewal Operating Levies (1994-2022)
  43. FY22 Report Card Analysis
  44. Overview of November 2022 Ohio School Levies
  45. Solar Energy Property Taxes vs. PILOT for Energy Projects (PPT)
  46. Solar Power Installation Property Taxes vs. PILOT Comparison
  47. CAUV Formula Change Analysis
  48. 2003-2022 Levies by Election
  49. New vs. Renewal and Replacement Operating Levies (1984-2022)
  50. School Operating Levies (1976-2022)
  51. School Operating & Capital Levy Totals, By Year (1984-2022)
  52. Changes in Ohio School Funding & TPP Replacement (FY11–FY22)
  53. Overview of May 2022 Ohio School Levies on the Ballot
  54. Overview of the Ohio Senate’s FY22-23 School Funding Formula
  55. The Central Importance of the DeRolph Rulings to School Funding in Ohio
  56. HB 82 Report Card System Changes
  57. Ohio Income Tax Changes and Equity (1972–2021)
  58. HB 110 EdChoice Voucher Program Changes
  59. HB 110 School Funding Formula Changes
  60. Ohio School Funding Trends (FY11–FY21)
  61. Ohio FY20 GRF Tax Revenue: COVID Impact & Recovery
  62. Ohio Solar Energy & Impact on School District Revenues
  63. House & Senate Bills Seek to Revise Ohio’s School Report Card
  64. OEPI Testimony on HB 110 School Funding
  65. Dr. Fleeter’s Testimony to the Senate Primary and Secondary Education Committee on HB 110.
  66. Updated: COVID-19 Impact on Ohio GRF Revenues (FY20 & FY21)
  67. 2020 Ohio School Levy Summary & Analysis
  68. HB 305 School Funding Plan Overview
  69. EdChoice Voucher Program Update
  70. OEPI President Message on OEPI’s Value
  71. OEPI Property Trends Report (1975-2015)
  72. Update: Appeal of Natural Gas Pipeline Values
  73. Update on Ohio’s Controversial Territory Transfer Law
  74. COVID-19 Impact on Ohio GRF Revenues (FY20 & FY21)
  75. Supplemental Funding for Power Plant Districts
  76. OEPI Officers Update
  77. Appeal of Natural Gas Pipeline Values
  78. Ohio’s Controversial Territory Transfer Law
  79. 2019 Ohio School Levy Summary & Analysis
  80. Analysis of the Cupp-Patterson School Funding Proposal (HB 305)
  81. OEPI Press Release on 20 Years of School Funding Post-DeRolph
  82. 20 Years of School Funding Post-DeRolph
  83. OEPI Analysis of Ed Trust “2018 Funding Gaps” Report
  84. OEPI Research Update: GRF Revenues, School Funding, and District Trends (2017)
  85. House Finance Primary and Secondary Ed Subcommittee House Bill 49 Testimony
  86. Analysis of HB 398 & SB 246 Changes to Ohio’s CAUV Formula
  87. OEPI Research Update: GRF Revenues, Funding Formula Issues & School Levies (2016)
  88. Community School Funding & Ohio Education Finance Trends
  89. CS Deduction and the Gain Cap
  90. Open Enrollment
  91. FY16-17 GRF Tax Revenues
  92. Casino & VLT Revenues
  93. OEPI Value Added Newsletter Article
  94. Senate Bill 208 Modifications to TPP Replacement Payments
  95. 2015 School Levy Update
  96. FY 16-17 Guarantee & Gain Cap
  97. Preliminary FY 15 Ohio Test Score Analysis
  98. Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) Revenue Update
  99. FY16-17 Phase-Out of TPP Replacement Payments
  100. FY16-17 School Funding Components
  101. Casino Tax Revenue Update
  102. Budget Bill Changes Election Law
  103. Transitional Aid Guarantee Analysis
  104. School Funding Comparison & Analysis: FY15 vs. FY17 Plans
  105. Recent Changes in Ohio Property Valuations
  106. State/Local Share of Funding in FY14-15 as Proposed by the Governor and House for FY16-17

In November 2015, ODE released preliminary FY 15 Ohio student test results. These preliminary results can be found on the ODE website at: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Testing-Results/Results-for-Ohios-State-Tests.

 

Please note that the final results should be available in February 2016 when the FY 15 Local Report Card results are scheduled for release by ODE.

 

Fiscal Year 15 tests were administered in four subject areas (English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) at a variety of grade levels in the Spring of 2015. The English Language Arts and Math tests were designed by the national organization Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) of which Ohio was member until July 1, 2015. The Science and Social Studies tests were Ohio-specific tests developed by Ohio educators in conjunction with the American Institutes for Research (AIR). AIR will also be working with Ohio educators to develop Ohio-specific tests in Mathematics and English Language Arts for use in FY 16 and beyond now that Ohio no longer belongs to PARCC.

 

OEPI aggregated the FY 15 preliminary test results in each of the four subject areas by grade level for every school district and then merged the district-by-district test results data on the English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies tests with data on the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in each district. The percentage of economically disadvantaged students is that reported on the Final FY 15 ODE School Finance Payment Report for each school district.

 

Ohio’s testing system reports the percentage of students in each district at five different levels of performance. In descending order, the five performance categories are as follows:

  • Advanced
  • Accelerated
  • Proficient
  • Basic
  • Limited

 

The OEPI analysis focused on three different measures of proficiency for each of the four subject areas:

  1. The percentage of students in each district that tested at a level “Proficient & Above” (i.e. % Advanced + % Accelerated + % Proficient)
  2. The percentage of students in each district that tested at the Advanced level
  3. The percentage of students in each district that tested at the Limited level

 

For each of the above three proficiency measures the OEPI analysis broke the districts down into performance quintiles ranging from highest performing to lowest performing in each subject area. An equal number of districts were placed in each of the five quintiles. OEPI then computed the average percentage of economically disadvantaged students in each quintile for each of the three performance categories.

 

For example, Table 1 summarizes the English Language Arts results by quintile comparing the percentage of students performing at the “Proficient & Above” level with the average percentage of economically disadvantaged students in each performance quintile.

 

Table 1: Percentage of Students Proficient & Above on FY 15 PARCC English Lang. Arts Tests (Grades 4-9) with % Economically Disadvantaged Students, by Quintile

English Language Arts Performance Quintile Average % Students “Proficient & Above” Avg. % Econ. Disadvantaged
Q1 (Highest Performing) 88.3% 17.9%
Q2 80.0% 33.7%
Q3 73.8% 46.4%
Q4 67.6% 51.3%
Q5 (Lowest Performing) 51.2% 75.7%
State Average 71.5% 48.3%

 

Table 1 shows that on the English Language Arts test, the highest performing quintile of school districts had 88.3% of students scoring at a level “Proficient or Above” and these same districts had an average percentage of economically disadvantaged students of 17.9%. In contrast, the lowest performing quintile of districts had only 51.2% of students scoring at a level of “Proficient or Above,” and these districts had an average percentage of economically disadvantaged students of 75.7%.

 

Table 2 summarizes the English Language Arts results by quintile comparing the percentage of students performing at the “Advanced” level with the average percentage of economically disadvantaged students in each performance quintile. Table 2 also shows that the districts whose students perform the best have the lowest percentage of economically disadvantaged students while the districts with the lowest percentage of students at the Advanced level have the highest economically disadvantaged percentage.

 

Table 2: Percentage of Students Scoring “Advanced” on FY 15 PARCC English Lang. Arts Tests (Grades 4-9) with % Econ. Disadvantaged Students, by Quintile

English Language Arts Performance Quintile Average % “Advanced” Students Avg. % Economic Disadvantaged
Q1 (Highest Performing) 14.6% 20.6%
Q2 7.0% 40.5%
Q3 4.8% 47.8%
Q4 3.1% 56.6%
Q5 (Lowest Performing) 1.3% 74.6%
State Average 6.7% 48.3%

 

Finally, Table 3 summarizes the English Language Arts results by quintile comparing the percentage of students performing at the “Limited” level with the average percentage of economically disadvantaged students in each performance quintile. Once again, Table 3 shows that the highest performing districts have the lowest percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and the lowest performing districts have the highest percentage of economically disadvantaged students. Note that in Table 3, the highest performing districts are those with the smallest percentage of students performing at the Limited level, and the lowest performing districts are those with the highest percentage of students performing at the Limited level.

 

Table 3: Percentage of Students Scoring “Limited” on FY 15 PARCC English Lang. Arts Tests (Grades 4-9) with % Economically Disadvantaged Students, by Quintile

English Language Arts Performance Quintile Average % “Limited” Students Avg. % Economic Disadvantaged
Q1 (Highest Performing) 2.8% 17.8%
Q2 5.5% 32.3%
Q3 8.2% 45.7%
Q4 11.0% 48.5%
Q5 (Lowest Performing) 22.0% 75.9%
State Average 10.7% 48.3%

 

Similar results to those summarized in Tables 1-3 above were found at all performance levels in all four subjects. The FY 15 preliminary test analysis shows that results in all four subject areas are very highly negatively correlated with the percentage of economically disadvantaged students. This means that the districts that perform the best on the tests have the lowest percentage of economically disadvantaged students and the districts that have the lowest performance have the highest percentage of economically disadvantaged students. These findings are highly disturbing as they show the continued existence of a pronounced “achievement gap” across Ohio’s school districts and students.