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

Community schools (aka “charter schools”) were first authorized in Ohio in 1997 as a pilot project in Lucas County.  The community school program was soon expanded to the “Urban 8” school districts (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown) and then in 1999 to the 21 largest urban school districts in the state.  In 2000 the program was extended to any district in “academic emergency”.   With the expansion of electronic community schools, now all districts in Ohio have some students who attend community schools.

 

Since their inception, community school funding has occurred through the “district deduction” method.  The deduction method works by first counting community school students in the Formula ADM of their district of residence.  Then, funding for each community school student is then deducted from the district after the district’s state aid has been computed.  Currently, community school students receive funding for the following components of the state foundation aid formula:

  • Core Opportunity Aid
  • Special Education by disability type
  • Career Technical Education by vocational category
  • Targeted Assistance
  • Economically Disadvantaged student aid
  • Limited English Proficient student funding
  • K-3 Literacy funding
  • Transportation (in some instances)

 

Because community schools have no source of local funding, the community school deduction is 100% of the state funding amount for each of the 8 components listed above.  According to the ODE FY2015 Final #3 SFPR payment report, there were 122,063 community school and STEM school students and the total community school deduction was $942.8 million. According to the ODE FY2016 June #3 SFPR payment report, there were 119,071 community school and STEM school students and the total community school deduction was $937.2 million

 

Ohio’s “traditional” public school districts have been complaining about the nature of the community school deduction almost since the moment of inception of the original community school pilot project.  In the past school year many districts sent “invoices” to ODE, asking for repayment of what they feel are excessively large community school deduction amounts.  The reason for the discontent among school districts is fairly straightforward.  When community students are included in the Formula ADM of a “regular” school district, the district only receives the state share of formula funding for each community school student. However, the community school deduction transfers 100% of the state formula amount for each student to the community school.   For example, in a district with a state share of 50%, the district will lose roughly twice as much money to the community school deduction as it received in state aid for those students (it is not exactly twice as much because Targeted Assistance, Economically Disadvantaged aid, and a portion of K-3 Literacy aid have 100% state shares for all students).   For many years, districts have been referring to this excess transfer amount as the “local share” of community school funding.  OEPI estimates in Fall 2015 placed this “local share” of community school funding at approximately $280 million – this is about 30% of the total community school funding amount in FY15.  Preliminary calculations for FY16 show a similar pattern, with the local share of community school funding remaining at approximately 30% of the total community school deduction amount.

 

Interaction of Community School Funding and the Gain Cap

While all Ohio school districts experience the “local share” issue described above, a second issue exists for school districts with large of community school students who are also subject to the “gain cap” aspect of the school funding formula.  The gain cap is a feature of the funding formula which limits the amount of growth in funding any district can get from one  year to the next.  In FY16 this limit was 7.5% (with a handful of smaller funding formula components exempt from this limit).   The gain cap means that in nearly 1/3 of Ohio’s K-12 school districts the computed amount of state aid that they should have received according to the parameters in the funding formula and the district’s specific characteristics was greater than the actual amount of state aid that they did receive. According to the ODE March #2 SFPR report, 185 districts were subject to the gain cap in FY16 and $591.8 million in additional state formula funding would have been provided had the cap not been imposed.

 

So the gain cap means that districts do not receive the full amount of state funding than the formula computes they should receive.  This issue further compounded when the district has a significant number of community school students.  This is because the community school deduction, as described above, removes the full amount of formula funding for each community school student, not just the state share amount.  The easiest way to demonstrate this effect is by using an example.  Because Columbus City School District has both a large number of community school students and is subject to the gain cap, it is a perfect example to show this phenomenon.  ODE June #2 SFPR Payment data is used for this example.

 

Columbus City School District

 

FY16 Formula ADM = 70,721 students

FY16 # Community & STEM school ADM = 18,089 students (74.4% of Formula ADM)

 

FY16 Calculated State Formula Aid = $387,288,983

FY16 Actual State Formula Aid after Gain Cap is applied = $296,876,285

 

Thus Columbus only receives 76.65% of the state aid that the formula would otherwise provide.

 

Additionally calculations show that the total formula amount (i.e. the amount that Columbus would receive if it state share was 100%) is roughly $645 million.

 

Columbus’s state share index in FY16 is 53.56%.  Because Economically disadvantaged aid and targeted assistance are 100% state funded, if Columbus received all of the state aid the formula would allocate without the gain cap ($387.3 million), then Columbus’s actual state share would be about 60%.  However, because of the gain cap, Columbus only receives $296.9 million, which means that the district’s effective start share is really only 46.0%.

 

Now consider what happens after the community school deduction.

 

The total FY16 Community School deduction (for the 18,089 Community School students) is $142,769,545.

 

This means that Columbus receives a net total of $154,106,740 in state aid to educate the 52,632 students who remain in district schools ($296.9 million – $154.1 million).  Thus, 26.6% of the students (the 18,089 community school students) take with them 48.1% ($142.8 million out of $296.9 million) of actual state aid.

 

Looked at another way, assuming that the community school students are basically similar to the students who remain in the district to be educated, the total aid amount (if the state share were 100%) for the districts 52,632 students is approximately $480 million (74.4% of $645 million).  This means that effective state share for the district’s 52,632 students is only 32.1% ($154.1 million divided by $480 million).

 

The reason for this is that the functioning of the community school funding mechanism that deducts 100% of the state share of funding is to allocate all of the gain cap funding to the students who remain to be educated in the district.  This in turn lowers the district’s effective state share even below what it would be due to the gain cap itself.  As the community school deduction predates the gain cap, this is clearly an unintended consequence of community school funding.  It is a serious consequence nonetheless.

 

As a result of the adoption in FY14 of the State Share Index (SSI) approach to determining the state and local share of funding in each school district there is no longer any debate about whether local dollars are being appropriated as part of the community school deduction. The example above also clearly demonstrates that the consequences are even larger for districts that are also on the gain cap.