Gov. John Kasich and Republican lawmakers argue it’s only a matter of time before funding will flow to school districts based entirely on what the ever-changing formula dictates, with no guardrails on either end to prevent decreases or limit the size of increases.

Whether putting all school districts on a set formula is practical or advisable, however, isn’t universally agreed upon. During budget debate last week, Sen. Chris Widener (R., Springfield) pointed to the 4,000 students that Cleveland Schools lost during the past four years. State revenue hasn’t reflected that enrollment decrease.

“And we claim to have a per-pupil funding formula,” he said.

The $71.3 billion, two-year budget the Senate passed last week would provide a total of $935 million more in basic subsidies to schools during the next two years.

Mr. Widener estimated that by the end of the next biennium, just 100 districts would be at the “guarantee” line, the point at which a school would see less aid because of lower enrollment and other issues if not for the built-in protections. That would be down from the current 198.

In two years, 138 districts would push up against the cap, the artificial ceiling limiting how much additional aid school districts may receive, in part, to help pay for the guarantee on the other end. That would be down from the current 232.

What school leaders question is whether moving away from the guarantee and cap is really a success.

“Everybody wants to get everyone on a formula so they can say we have a way to make sure we are funding school districts properly,” Toledo Public Schools Treasurer Matt Cleland said. “But there’s tremendous diversity among the state of Ohio.”

That’s not sour grapes, as TPS stands to gain significantly in any funding plan presented this year. Under the governor’s plan, TPS would receive about $21 million in new state revenue in 2016, the largest net increase in the state. The Senate proposes a smaller increase for the district, but it’s still a $17.8 million boost.

Mr. Cleland’s point is that education funding is complicated and that no two districts are alike. A one-size-fits-all formula can miss the diversity between districts. There’s been many attempts to find the ideal formula, to no avail. Every few years, a new funding formula is proposed, only to be subsequently scrapped a few years later.

The funding proposals out of Columbus all have some basis in what was proposed this year by Gov. John Kasich.

Schools are funded per pupil, with a base rate for each child. Then a calculation of a community’s ability to afford local taxes determined how much more that district should get. There’s other layers, as well, such as how many special education students a district teaches.

Though Mr. Kasich proposes pumping more money into the state education system, not everyone stands to see funding increases.

First, districts that the state formula shows have a local capacity to raise revenue would lose state funding.

Also, because the governor’s budget calls for phasing out of tangible personal property and utility tax reimbursements, districts will lose that money.

For some who say that the cost of education has been shifted to local property taxes and away from the state, the focus on a formula is a distraction from the real issue.

“This idea that we’re putting the urbans against the rurals against the suburban — if we would adequately fund education, we wouldn’t be having this conversation,” said Rep. Denise Driehaus (D., Cincinnati), one of two Democrats on the six-member conference committee now working to resolve differences between the House and Senate-passed budgets.

Greg Clark, Northwood Schools superintendent, believes school funding is done backward.

Instead of determining how much the state will spend on schools, then trying to create a formula to distribute those funds, the state should determine how much it costs to adequately teach a child, then commit to spending however much money that is.

“We have a job to do. Let’s figure out how much that job costs, and let’s put the revenue together to do that,” he said.

Under the Senate’s plan, Northwood would receive a slight increase in state funding in 2016, but then a small decrease the next year.

Even if the state came up with a funding formula that was perfect and fair, lawmakers would have to fully fund that formula, a prospect for which Mr. Clark has little confidence.

Mr. Kasich’s original plan would have provided $700 million in additional basic aid during the next two years. The House added $270 million to that, and the Senate version scaled it back to a total of $935 million.

The House version has more districts on the cap and guarantee than its Senate counterpart. The House would compensate for revenue that districts continue to lose as the state phases out the financial support that came from a now-defunct business tax.

Mr. Kasich’s plan would have allowed the phase-out to continue unabated, contributing to losses for the districts most heavily dependent on it.

The Senate plan is somewhere in between, allowing the phase-out to continue but guaranteeing that no school district will receive less money in the next two years than this year as a result. A handful of districts, however, might see decreases in 2017 compared with 2016 as the impact of the phase-out is felt.

Mr. Kasich correctly anticipated the legislative maneuvering ahead when he unveiled his proposal in February.

“Don’t just take care of your school because you want to give them more money because you want to look better,” he warned lawmakers then. “That’s not the issue here. The issue is getting the resources to the people who most need it.

“That’s what this is about, not about political considerations, not about redirecting money from the poor districts to the districts that may favor a political party. It’s about doing a formula that makes sense so we can reduce the number of capped districts.”

About half of the districts in the state would have seen negative numbers under his plan.

A six-member conference committee met for the first time Friday to begin its role of resolving the differences between the House and Senate versions of the budget. The goal is to get a bill on Mr. Kasich’s desk before the current fiscal year ends June 30.

Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.

Contact Nolan Rosenkrans at: nrosenkrans@theblade.com or 419-724-6086, or on Twitter @NolanRosenkrans.

First Published June 20, 2015, 4:00 a.m.