Some of these failing school systems (Baltimore, MD & Prince George’s County, MD) have some of the highest budgets per pupil in the country. The problem isn’t money.

I'd be interested in how those budgets are broken down. Are those schools spending the money on finding the best teachers, counselors, mentors, etc. for their struggling students? Or are they spending it in more questionable areas?

That's a genuinely curious question. I haven't researched any specifics about those schools or how they use their money.

It's possible for a vicious cycle to develop between waste/corruption in a school system and poor academic performance, wherein additional money doesn't help improve outcomes. That doesn't mean that withholding resources is the solution; rather, it means that a more fundamental restructuring than American municipal governments may be comfortable with is in order.

I think numbers might lie a bit there.

If the function of education is to provide an even starting point for kids regardless of their personal environment, it stands to reason that in places where those personal environments are worse you'd need brutal amounts of resources, since you'll indirectly be covering for parents' neglect, psychological issues, and other factors that should have been handled somewhere else but are being stuck in the education budget. If you see it under that scope, absolute numbers might not tell you much.

Bingo.

One kid has access to books and parents who read with them at home every night.

Another kid has no books at home and no learning support after they leave school.

How much is it going to cost to teach each child to read at the same proficiency level?

Agreed. The problem I see is that certain failing school systems (and individual pupils elsewhere) are quagmires of spending. There are cohorts of students you could spend infinite resources on at school and they would not learn. This is why the top-level parent comment focuses on ROI, and I think it is a harsh perspective which is necessary nonetheless.

A school can only do so much to offset the negative impacts of poor home-life. Learned helplessness is real and debilitating and it is often learned at home at a young age. I empathize with the tax payers in this area who see above-average taxes for below-average results.

I get your point, but (also with a harsh perspective) the point isn't really to create engineers and doctors from the downtrodden.

The point is that even if you get those kids even 10% of the way of others, that might be what buys you one less person between bars. Or suffering from substance abuse. Or fueling Ponzi schemes, MLM or cults as a victim. Or living in the streets. Or voting irrationally for the next populist policy maker (in any part of the political spectrum, not being political here).

The moment you renounce to killing all of those who misbehave, you have to accept that these people are going to be your neighbors for the foreseeable future, and so it really pays to take care of the problem as early as possible, because frankly, you'll be spending resources either way.

ROI is only irrelevant in a post-scarcity society. Everywhere else, choices have to be made. :(

Highest budgets still aren't very high though. It's anchored low.