In an environment of increasingly diverse classrooms and evolving pedagogical techniques, it becomes increasingly difficult for teachers and administrators to know how to best support students, especially those with high needs. At the state level, education funding policies have been forced into similar renovation, impelled by everything from virtual learning to schools of choice to shifting student demographics. This advances the idea that there are clear advantages to funding education as California is doing--in a student-driven way, with a base level of money provided for each child and additional dollars allocated for those with greater needs. For one thing, the calculation that determines a district's funding is clear and transparent, allowing parents and the community to hold the state and district accountable for resource equity at the student level. The system is also flexible. By funding the student rather than inputs, the state allows districts to offer whatever programs, classroom arrangements, and supports they deem best for their students. This model of funding is also more responsive to innovations in pedagogy and changes in educational best practices, because schools are free to use their dollars to employ new, more effective methods. In contrast, funding that is tied to programs may tie down districts to doing things as they have always been done rather than what is best for children. This article describes how California moved away from this burdensome system in 2013 when the legislature passed the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), a student-based funding model. The article questions if this large leap in accountability and local control will pay off.