[xyzzyz]

This federal 10%, along with state level funding, is typically used to level the funding across the districts. The equalization of per student spending in school districts across the country has largely already happened, with little to show for it in terms of improvement of low performing schools. Rich districts do have more local school funding than poor districts, but this difference is made up with state and federal funds.

There is extreme scarcity of evidence for the idea that giving more money to schools improve outcomes of students. It simply doesn’t work this way. The worst performing schools in many US cities already have very high levels of funding with little to show it, for example in Washington DC. At the same time, quasi-experimental settings like Zuckerberg dropping $100M on Newark schools have basically zero effect in terms of student outcomes.

[Loquebantur]

Kids don't actually learn much curriculum content (as opposed to social behavior) when at school. They do that when at home.

Poor kids' homes aren't conducive to learning. They lack the necessary materials, (undisturbed) space and time. Necessary social support for content learning is often absent.

Wondering about why money given to schools (used for the most part for administrative nonsense presumably) doesn't change outcomes much consequently appears to show a (class based?) detachment from respective realities?