> There are more than 13,000 school districts in the nation; Baltimore ranks at about 2,400 in per-pupil spending in the overall group. ...
> Baltimore’s spending is comparable to other Maryland districts but falls short of adequacy when factoring in the composition of the district’s student population ...
> o Baltimore has the highest concentrations of students in poverty and the highest percentage of students with disabilities in the state.
> o By the state’s own analysis, City Schools should have received $290 million more each year under the current formula.
> o A state-commissioned report indicates the district needs $358 million more to ensure adequacy for the city’s students.
On average, disabled students cost more to educate than non-disabled. Without knowing the distribution of students types in Baltimore City vs. private schools, a simple head-to-head comparison is meaningless.
Finally, you didn't give a simple head-to-head comparison.
You compared costs for the public school (funding / number of students) with tuition (funding by students).
Private schools may also receive funding through other means, eg, state-funded scholarships, or subsidized use of public resources like land and buildings.
(Plus, I don't see how the answer is not "yes". If we pay enough for a 1:5 teacher:student ratio then we'll almost certainly get better educational outcomes, yes? Which means I don't understand your question.)
I'm only pointing out what I believe are large methodological weaknesses in your earlier comment.
The biggest differences are generally between rural and urban districts.
Huh. I would characterize this more like "suburban vs. everything else, with some urban exceptions".
City schools have extreme bifurcations depending on their inputs; Boston Latins and Lane Techs exist but are notable precisely because they're exceptions to the general rule that city school systems aren't great.
Suburban schools are generally OK. Never nearly as good as the local population seems to think, but whatever.
Rural schools are uniformly horrible (but at least not as bad as the bad side of the bifurcated urban schools).
At least, that's my understanding.
We spend lots of money on education for students in wealthy districts.
We spend way less on education for students in poor districts.