I won't argue each point, but you were vague about that.
We already have somewhat of a "blend". Low income schools already receive quite a bit of funding from the state.
As per the article that tjb just posted:
Philadelphia relied somewhat more heavily on state revenue and less on local sources than did most of the 10 other districts in 2013-14. In that year, Philadelphia received 45.9 percent of its operational revenue from the state, which was slightly above the 10-district average, and 42.3 percent of its revenue from local sources, which was slightly below the average.
It also goes on to state how the schools are funded:
From 1991 to 2008, Pennsylvania did not use a formal education funding formula to distribute state dollars to school districts. Instead, the state funded districts through a “hold-harmless” system, which attempted to ensure that districts’ funding would not be cut from one year to the next and that any increases would be distributed as a percentage of past funding. Hold-harmless systems do not take into account changes in enrollment trends, a district’s wealth, or the demographic makeup of the student population.
From 2008 to 2011, the state used a new system that provided school districts with a base amount of funding per student that was adjusted for student needs and each district’s wealth. As the system was phased in, state funding was not reduced for any district, a provision designed to be phased out over several years.