Seems like this could be improved by mandating no more than 2x disparity between spending on kids in the same grade level. Disruptors can be kicked into the gladiator camps or emancipated if they think they're so independent on what they can do.
Actual measurement for most disruptions is really hard because it usually manifests in things like "Timmy was really distracting in class during the Math lesson". Quantifying that is difficult.
Capping spending ratios would also be horrific for the US specifically because we implement many of our social welfare programs for kids through the schools: school lunches, speech therapy, etc. (incidentally, this overinflates our spending on students relative to peer nations). You'd be relegating poor kids to even worse outcomes than they already face which would have some seriously negative downstream effects once they become adults.
My thought process is the rich kids are already going to private school, where by your own admission various factors present advantages to them.
The poorer left competing at the public schools all have their various challenges and struggles. IMO the best we can do for them is afford them equality of OPPORTUNITY for use of numerical amount of public funds. Johnny gets 10k Billy gets 10k, maybe 20k at most. There's no guarantee you'll get equality of outcome, but at least you got equal shot at the public funds and one poor kid doesn't lose out a huge amount so the other kid gets 5x the money. At some point sure more money is almost always better than less, but we have to remember that comes at the cost of other poor kids.
As for lunches... I don't know why those aren't just given to all kids in public school by default. That would make it equal and satisfy the criteria.
>Quantifying that is difficult
This sounds accurate but I have to point out you've expressed the private schools are finding effective ways to identify disruptors.
Last I heard, average American per-student public school spending was ~$10K per pupil per year. Do free school lunches and a few hours per week with a speech therapist (or whatever a kid needs) actually add $10K to the annual cost of a pupil?
(And if "yes", could the problem mostly be fixed by (say) changing "2x" to "3x"?)
IIR, the biggest barrier to that idea is the kids with special needs, and either the ADA or similar laws. And at least in some states, "Chris has really special medical needs" can be a license to bleed the school district to financial ruin.
