Nobody claimed that all schools (or schools in general) will have the same outcomes regardless of funding.
It's quite possible parent engagement and cultural differences are stronger drivers for positive outcomes, and that those things lead to higher funding for schools. But that doesn't imply higher funding causes positive outcomes. They're just correlated.
Many of our nation's underperforming schools are located in urban areas with no shortage of funds available and under the control of the political party supporting this idea. Yet the issue remains unsolved.
Is there any level of funding that would lead proponents to acknowledge funding may not be the primary issue?
It's quite possible parent engagement and cultural differences are stronger drivers for positive outcomes, and that those things lead to higher funding for schools. But that doesn't imply higher funding causes positive outcomes. They're just correlated.
Many of our nation's underperforming schools are located in urban areas with no shortage of funds available and under the control of the political party supporting this idea. Yet the issue remains unsolved.
Is there any level of funding that would lead proponents to acknowledge funding may not be the primary issue?