When John Kasich met with superintendents the day he unveiled his new funding plan for public schools, he hardly could have been more emphatic. He declared: “If you’re poor, you’re going to get more. If you are richer, you’re going to get less.” Add the usual talk from the governor’s camp about taking bold action, “achievement everywhere,” goes the slogan, and the impression was that Kasich would attack the chronic problem of funding equity with greater aggressiveness than in the past.

More, the governor reminded that while some districts raise as much as $14,000 per mill, others are able to collect just $700 or $800. “That’s not fair competition,” he rightly added.

So the impression deepened, the governor having his eye not merely on equity but also on adequacy, each child with the opportunity to get an education that would provide the tools for him or her to compete in the global marketplace.

Yet, once the governor released the actual school spending numbers for the biennium, superintendents and other education officials started scratching their heads. The numbers did not match the rhetoric. Many wealthier districts would see increases in state funding. Many poorer districts would receive no increases.

The governor and aides have responded by stressing that poorer districts would receive a larger amount of state funding overall than wealthier districts. Yet that long has been true of school funding, addressing inequities by routing more state money to districts with lower incomes.

Has the governor broken sharply with past, delivering something unique and transforming? Not really. The state spending follows recent patterns, albeit wealthier districts getting a slightly larger share, and the poorer slightly smaller. By contrast, if the evidence-based model of Ted Strickland had been fully funded, it would have directed a significantly greater share to poorer districts.

The point isn’t to suggest that more money is the easy answer. School funding is a complicated task, many districts performing well with lower per-pupil spending than others. When the discussion turns to adequacy, the concern is the competition factor the governor raised. Do all districts have the tools to pursue the level of excellence so many lawmakers and others applaud?

Does each district offer an adequate level of such items as foreign languages, art and music, Advanced Placement classes? On Monday, Dave Scott, a Beacon Journal staff writer, captured how the state failing to keep pace in aiding districts with transportation costs puts pressure on other priorities, even those in the classroom.

Analysts looking carefully at the governor’s proposal even worry about a return of “phantom revenue,” the formula assuming that higher property values will lead to additional local money even when district income levels are low. The governor pitched the idea that he had come up with something innovative, even a breakthrough. For the moment, it looks more like more of the same.