Spending per pupil alone doesn't tell the whole story. In the US, it's common for school districts in high poverty areas to end up providing services that in o

Spending per pupil alone doesn't tell the whole story. In the US, it's common for school districts in high poverty areas to end up providing services that in other countries would be provided via state welfare or privately. So free school lunches and breakfasts, physical and occupational therapy, counseling and nursing for students, transportation for handicapped, social workers etc all get wrapped up in a district budget, with the largest chunk of spending going towards the highest need students. Add up the higher rates of childhood poverty and special needs in urban areas and the per pupil spending becomes a poor measure of what is actually spent on education for the average student. I'll note that in my state, the balakanized school district situation in many metros leaves suburban districts too small to provide these services themselves, and they'll often send their highest need students into the bigger urban district. Here's an article describing some of this disparity among districts in the Cleveland, Ohio area. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/poverty_and_special_needs_eat.html http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/poverty_and...