I bet if you took took the Cupertino school district families, and transplanted them into a much worse school district, and kept the same teachers, same staff, same buildings, same funding level of school, you would see the school district improve, even without the funding.
The issue is the families in poverty don't have the time and energy to care about school. Wealthy families, care about school. So even if the school is crappy, they will make sure their kids learn what they need to. In impoverished school districts, teachers can't concentrate on teaching, because they have to act as both teachers and social workers and advocates for their students.
So even if you increased the funding of schools, if you did not address the poverty in the surrounding community, it will mostly be a waste of money and political capital.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-03-27-me-51685-...
https://ed100.org/lessons/whopays
In affluent areas the local PTA often gathers donations from parents to fund extra programs for things like sports, music, and technology.
A list of relevant articles https://reason.org/author/corey-deangelis/
We need to separate school funding/quality from neighborhood affluence but that's a tall order politically.