This guys argument is based on a meta-analysis which has nothing at all to do with the argument he is making. The meta analysis in question (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610568.pdf) is talking about how different research techniques measure data in different ways and therefore can't be easily compared. He then takes a look at this data, determines that it means interventions don't work very well (he doesn't argue they don't work, just that they don't work that well) and therefore concludes that we shouldn't even try to close the gaps in educational outcomes. You can't read a study and completely change it's meaning, especially since the study he cites is from researches that clearly believe evidence based educational intervention can work. In other words, the people who the author cites, who looked at the data more closely then the author hold opposite beliefs from the author.
The specific quote given, however, is not from your link but from Pathways to Inequality: Between-District Segregation and Racial Disparities in School District Expenditures[0].
>From this table, we can see that on average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively.
That being the case it is possible that GP simply means to bring that one fact, that is, that minorities have more funding yet still do not achieve the same academic results (aside from asians), rather than as an endorsement of the rest of the article. In any event it is a point worth considering regardless of GP's intention.
Also from the article you quote: "We find that as Black–White racial segregation increases over time, total per pupil expenditures and other per pupil expenditures shift in ways that disfavor the typical Black student’s district relative to the typical White student’s district. We also find that Latinx–White segregation is associated with a relative shift of per pupil infrastructure expenditures that disfavors the typical Latinx student’s district and a shift of per pupil other expenditures that favors the typical Latinx student’s district."
So, still doesn't seem better for the argument that's trying to be made.
Not really. That quote alone could simply mean that as already black-majority schools become more black, that is, "increases of time," they get less total funding. But that doesn't mean that total per pupil expenditures of majority black schools are lower than white ones. In fact that would directly contradict that "on average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively" which is stated explicitly rather than "shift in ways that disfavor the typical Black student’s district relative to the typical White student’s district" which is ambiguous. I didn't read the whole paper but this quote alone doesn't mean anything. The fact is that black schools get more money according to that study.
