yes, but that spend isn't well distributed, and things are more expensive in the US (I assume your nubers are not corrected for the price index of each country).
That's true, but generally the worst school districts are the ones that get the most money, although the exact way money is distributed varies by region. For instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district describes how NJ gives tons of money to schools in poor areas, although it does not seem to have produced any better educational outcomes.
Not sure what the difference is. But it does seem that no matter how much money you throw at a problem with no measurable impact, there will always be people claiming just a little bit more is needed because this time something will be different and it won't be squandered.
How much of that "money thrown at the problem" is actually used to pay teachers more and attract competent teaching talent and give the teachers proper resources they don't have to buy with their own money and providing needy students the help they need to succeed?
I already know the answer, because many in my family are lifelong teachers. All money goes to facilities that don't always need it, though are still good investments, and administration.
The current process sure works well to say "well we keep throwing money at it and nothing improves" as if you can LITERALLY just throw money in the general direction of the problem and see an improvement. As long as those prioritizing funds and resources continue to just ignore teachers wholesale, we will see no improvement in education.
It'll be interesting to see how far things can go before people stop making these arguments. It's the same argument people made 20 years ago. Yet spending keeps going up without results. Check back in another 20, I predict "equity" will be as far away as today but a lot more money will be spent and the public discourse will be the same.
Also, there are different regions and schools where different ways of spending money have been tried. The best results you'll find in the literature are temporary improvements that wash out by the end of high school. The worst results are not even that.
Investment clearly works across all facets of our economy. It could work, in schools, too. But our society will never allow for what it really takes to adequately use the funding given to it.
It's not surprising students did better as they were younger. Poor districts expose children to bad outcomes earlier leading to poor performance in school, obviously during the teenage years.
We have very clear evidence money solves a lot of problems. Why doesn't it work here? It works everywhere else in our capitalist economy.
In any case the difference is quite clear. If a school in a rich suburb doesn't get much federal money than, say, a inner city school, that gets a lot. That rich suburb already has money. They obviously wouldn't get further funding - but are likely much richer?
The numbers you cited also have a citation that leads to a 404 and are only for 1 year, in one specific state. Hard to draw any reasonable conclusion from that.