Idk where you're talking about but my senior year had an option for english class where you just watch movies all day, an option to take pre algebra as your math class, an option for "sports literature" in social studies (basically you just watch sports). Shit genuinely could not have been any easier and kids would still fail because they would cut class constantly and do drugs in the bathroom instead of going to class
I want you to use critical thinking for a moment here. Why on Earth would inner city schools be underfunded compared to suburban schools? Same thing is true here in SE PA, but we’ve been doing Charter Schools instead of bussing and it’s been vastly successful (minus the corruption).
There’s just so much that goes into it. For example, OP’s graph doesn’t clarify what measurements are used to determine “most/least educated.” A measurement like average highest grade completed would be a rather poor choice but would still be a (biased) way to measure state education quality. I know that MA’s higher education system is pretty much unparalleled, and even Boston’s public schools are likely much better than Philly’s, coming from our ~50% functional illiteracy rate
Philly’s Catholic School educations are pretty much a gold standard in the country and have competition for entry that can be compared to universities. Catholic and Charter schools here are pretty much the only option to give your kids a chance at a future because the public school system has been doomed to fail them since apartheid America routed as much funding as possible to white schools. We’re making a lot of progress, but there’s still so much work to do.
Pretty much every large city is still gonna have lower statistics compared to the rest of its state for the next 50-100 years so the comparison isn’t fair to make. Looking at how it compares to other cities, Boston would still be top 5-10 so compared to places like Philly & Baltimore youse are doing pretty okay for yourselves