Interesting article, but it doesn't really tell me much. Where is the money going? For instance, Alaska tops the list, but is all that spending in the same areas as DC? I would imagine that Alaska has much higher transporation costs thank DC does.
Money spent per student isn't a persuasive argument, anyway. What are we getting for the money? I'd wager that taxpayers in Alaska get a lot more bang for their educational buck than DC residents do.
Then again, look at Mississippi. They rank 48th on this list, and they spend the least as well. Is that a case of "you get what you pay for"? What does Massachusetts know that nobody else has figured out yet? Their spending is among the highest (42nd), and their scores are #1. And the Massholes getting their money's worth in education?
Don't get me wrong; the District of Columbia is a disgrace. But I'm more interested in what the problem is. All this study tells me is that the problem isn't (spending). You can't look at the table you posted and draw any conclusion about the relationship between per-pupil spending and learning.
Health care, other bennies, and pensions quite probably. They soak up the biggest amount of money in this neck of the woods.
"What does Massachusetts know that nobody else has figured out yet? Their spending is among the highest (42nd), and their scores are #1."
As a former teacher who is proud to say that my granchildren are ALL home schooled, I'd say that MA schools "teach to the test". In fact they may even pre-teach with the test!
Padding scores is not unheard of and I wouldn't trust that State to do anything straight up.