It makes sense to have roughly sized but limited district, school, and classroom to optimize between the collective economies-of-scale on one side and the maxim

It makes sense to have roughly sized but limited district, school, and classroom to optimize between the collective economies-of-scale on one side and the maximum number of students any classroom or district can administer in an effective manner on the other. Too few: it's too expensive per pupil; too many (~ 24+) in a classroom, the quality of education suffers and too many in a district also leads to inefficiencies and scaling issues. Los Angeles is the worst, by far: 560k students. Ridiculous. That's the population of a large city. Good luck forming a local hobby club for the kids with other parents and with the school's blessing. Scale investment by managing fewer students and give school administrators best practices and benchmarks. It's far easier for large districts to use large piles of money inefficiently than for districts managing fewer pupils. The other thing is to mandate parental involvement. Without this, there is unlikely to be a good outcome. It also implies that parents need some sort of paid leave and/or scheduling to be involved in their kids' education.