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

The OEPI Summer 2015 Newsletter contained an article summarizing the Fiscal Year (FY) 16-17 school funding formula. (See Summer newsletter on the OEPI website). The article explained that the transitional aid guarantee was retained in FY 16 and FY 17, ensuring that all districts receive at least as much formula aid in the new biennium as they received in FY 15, and that the gain cap was set at a maximum state aid increase of 7.5% each year.

 

This article provides a summary of the number of the districts on the guarantee and gain cap in recent years. The table below shows the number of districts on the gain cap and guarantee from FY 14 through FY 17 as well as the total dollar amounts for both the cap and guarantee. FY 14 and FY 15 figures are actual totals from the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) school finance payment report webpage while the FY 16 and FY 17 figures are Legislative Service Commission (LSC) estimates.

 

Table 1: Guarantee and Gain Cap Summary, FY 14-FY 17

  FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 (Est.) FY 17 (Est.)
Transitional Aid Guarantee $184.1 Million $165.9 Million $137.1 Million $100.8 Million
198 districts 188 districts 168 districts 122 districts
Gain Cap $917.4 Million $669.2 Million $474.4 Million $352.4 Million
340 districts 237 districts 193 districts 138 districts

     Source: FY 14 & FY 15 data from ODE, FY 16 & FY 17 estimates from LSC.

 

Table 1 shows that both the guarantee and gain cap have been steadily decreasing since FY 14. According to LSC’s estimates, in FY 17 only 122 districts will be on the guarantee at a cost of just over $100 million. LSC also projects that the gain cap will only impact 138 districts in FY 17, with $352.4 million in state aid owed to these districts in future years.

 

If funding formula parameters (i.e. the per pupil foundation amount, the special ed. and career technical ed. weighted amounts, etc…) continue to increase annually, both the guarantee and gain cap (assuming it remains roughly at 7.5%) should “naturally” decrease over time. Assuming no dramatic changes in the formula, ADM, or property values, most districts should be off the gain cap in several years. However, some districts (perhaps 40 or 50 depending on the particulars of the formula and property value changes) are projected to remain on the guarantee for a much longer period of time.

 

Impact of the Gain Cap & Guarantee on Community School Funding

Ohio school districts have been complaining about the community school deduction ever since community school first started over 15 years ago. Districts object to the fact that while they only receive the state share of funding for each community school student, the deduction amount is the full 100% of state aid owed for each student attending a community school. This means that many school districts are effectively contributing a local share of the community school deduction amount. OEPI analysis estimated this local share to be roughly $278 million (30%) of the $930 million in community school funding in FY 15.

 

While the community school deduction has an adverse impact on districts that are on the formula, the impact is actually even worse for districts that are on the guarantee or gain cap. For a district on the guarantee, any increase in the formula parameters (per pupil foundation amount, special ed, career tech, LEP, etc.) means that the community school deduction amount will automatically increase. However, districts on the guarantee do not receive any more funding than they had in the prior year. Thus, for a district on the guarantee, they will actually receive less and less state funding over time even if the number of community school students remains constant.

 

Similarly, for a district on the gain cap, they do not receive the full increase in funding that they are owed based on the number and type of students that comprise their formula ADM. However, the community school deduction once again is for the full amount of state aid owed to the community schools. As a result, districts on the gain cap end up receiving less than their computed state share of state funding for the students that they educate.

 

In order to understand the extent to which the guarantee and gain cap issues described above are impacting the community school deduction, OEPI ranked every district in terms of their FY 15 community school deduction as a percentage of state formula aid. Of the top 25 districts (all of which lost more than 17% of their state aid to the community school deduction), 16 were on the gain cap, four were on the guarantee, and five were on the formula.