You can’t make those funding generalizations because the end amount that schools spend on students is defined locally. I just looked in the Massachusetts school funding database. The town I’m not going to out myself as having attended spent ten thousand dollars per year less per student than the Upper-Middle-Class Weston, and the fantastically expensive Cambridge spent 7k per student more than that annually.
Local taxes are where much funding comes from but the redistributionary measures come from both the state and Federal in 'normal' funding as well as a wide array of various program based funding, like Title 1 at the Federal Level. This is why looking up the total amount spent per student is a bit trickier than it might seem. This [1] paper breaks down all funding, with details by state. Check out page 23. So for instance in Massachusetts high poverty districts receive the highest public funding by an very wide margin, with $27,468/student contrasted against a statewide average of $21,767.
What your experience may reflect is more of a rural/urban divide rather than poor/rich. If you happened to live in a low income rural area with few minorities, then your public funding is going to be much less than an urban school with more minorities. You also need to account for basic cost differences, which is going to be factored into redistributionary measures. A dollar goes way further in rural areas than it does urban, which yet further reduces the amount of funding that rural areas receive. Finally schools with higher minority populations tend to have worse outcomes (higher crime, lower scores, etc) which means by the inverse you also receive less funding if you have fewer minorities.
There's even a hint of this possibility in the data. In Massachusetts, the highest poverty districts do indeed receive, by an overwhelming margin, the most funding. But the second group with high levels of 'mid poverty' receives the lowest funding amongst all 4 groups. The data doesn't specify, but I'd expect that this group is significantly comprised of rural and low minority populations.
[1] - https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2024//2024309.pdf
You’re trying to make conclusions about local situations using federal funding data. No matter how many words you type about it, your approach is fundamentally inadequate and you’re making sweeping generalizations based on it. I’m out. Have a nice day.
That's not federal funding data. The paper provides specific numbers on the total funding including local, state, and federal. Looking only at local funding, as you likely did, is completely misleading.