Probably not fair to single the schools out. You could look at other factors like single parent households, which are very strongly associated with negative out

Probably not fair to single the schools out. You could look at other factors like single parent households, which are very strongly associated with negative outcomes and on the rise since like... 1950. Dual-income households which fall between the "we can't afford private tutors" and "we can't afford extracurriculars" income brackets but solidly in the "we've maximized our minimal time with our child" category. Not to mention the huge wealth disparity in some metros. Rapidly growing metropolitan areas that simply can't accommodate the masses. There's also all the federal benchmarks, and that's shit that rolls downhill, but from my experience the teachers I personally know don't like the system as it is - it's just that their bosses and on up demand quantifiable results on standardized tests because continued funding is contingent on it. In a lot of cases hands are tied by legal and ethics. I also expect the unions are representative of their constituents. Where I live all the teachers wanted to be back, and we were among the earliest states back in action. Coincidentally highly conservative and rural (mostly one and the same). But I don't disagree with the more general statement as things stand, and funding is dealt with by a headcount of students - this might provoke positive reactions in the market.