This is a common but false claim. Property tax funding is supplemented by state and federal taxes to compensate disparities:

https://www.heritage.org/education/report/the-myth-racial-di...

on average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively [total per-pupil funding is around $14k, so the differences are negligible] - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23328584198724...

And the US spends more than average per pupil - more than Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Finland, and Japan: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd

The state does not "compensate" for the fact that wealthy city school districts simply fund their schools under the table with massive PTA budgets, and there is not a lot the state can do about that in the short term without significant tax reform.

Three adjacent school districts, in descending order of household income and grade-level performance: Piedmont (90% at-grade-level), Berkeley (67%), Oakland (33%).

Three randomly chosen districts out of tens of thousands prove little. Looking at wider statistics instead of small anecdote, we see that in addition to lagging behind countries the US outspends on education, greatly increased spending has had no benefits even within its borders:

Since 1970, inflation adjusted public school spending has more than doubled. Over the same period, achievement of students at the end of high school has stagnated according to the Department of Education’s own long term National Assessment of Educational Progress [I encourage you to visit the website for the illuminating graph of inflation adjusted per-pupil spending and test scores vs. time] - https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/education-spending-doub...

A blackboard and chalk do not need heavy funding.

The classes I learned the most at in university consisted of a professor, a blackboard, and chalk.

And you're focusing on the funding requirements of the blackboard and chalk in that equation?

The funding (and quality!) of the professor seems more relevant, whether they're teaching on a blackboard, a fancy networked glowing screen, or just declaiming from atop a rock.

Well, yeah, it's the professor, not all the expensive props that the schools say they need funding for.

>Public schools are heavily funded by property taxes.

Not in California.

My kids' California school relied heavily on "voluntary" donations, which depend heavily on the socioeconomics of the parent community.

Yes, more interested parents + more money can make a huge difference even if they use the same basic textbooks/standards/etc.

Not even money. How involved are the parents in the child's education. That's generally the number one predictor I found in my years of teaching.

I agree that parents are the most important factor, but lack of money can cause problems even if extra money doesn’t help much. Severely under funded schools close more frequently for things like broken furnaces etc.