My $.02: The prime indicator for student success is parental engagement. That flows from the emphasis the parent places on education. "Rich" school districts are so because the residents of such districts earn high incomes through leveraging human capital they've acquired through... wait for it... education. They know what their kids will need to succeed. Having said that, the school funding model is inconsistent with the constitution of this state, where the state government is tasked with funding a "... thorough and efficient system of common schools." It doesn't say the individual districts will fund this in in cooperation with the state. It says plainly the state is accountable solely. Not that local input isn't needed. But think of this: Ohio has about 600 districts each with a school board of maybe 5 members or so. Thats 3,000 folks in leadership who are talented people invested in quality education in their communities. What do these people end up doing? Worrying about levies, bond issues, teacher and district labor contract negotiations, awarding building contracts, etc. As Casper alluded to earlier, we should centralize that funding and effort at the state level and let those local people work on driving student achievement. Correlation is not the same as causation. The same force that drives good results in achievement testing and student success for certain districts often concurrently drives money into the districts' treasuries. This "force" comes from active parents who ascribe high value to education. Tearing down "rich" districts will not help "poor" ones.