> I think all funding in California education (other than terminal levels like 4 year bachelors and up) should be a function of the percentage of students that succeed at the next step.

This seems problematic.

Students' success isn't entirely up to the school. Some areas genuinely need more resources than others.

This system punishes areas that need more resources with by removing resources, likely causing a downward spiral.

A generation of kids is left with poor education before the schools eventually close, and then who wants to start a school in an area that has historically struggled, when funding depends on them succeeding?

Based on happenings in other states, when public schools close the schools that take their place are from well funded groups who care more about spreading ideologies than running successful or profitable schools.

The function isn't "winner takes all". It's a claw back after objective failure.

California already spends tons of extra money on stuff like special ed, and struggling districts. I wouldn't touch that.

So, if there's a high school in a struggling area and it's graduating kids that can't do 7th grade math, then that opens up funding for charters in that area at 150% state average per student, or whatever the current formula us.