Does More Money Equal Better Schools?

Does more money equate to better schools? 

Yes.
...and no.

First one must consider the dry lot that is statistics.  Looking at the numbers there can be some confusion.  There are a few states that are top performers, like Colorado which are also some of those that spend the least amount per a student on education.  Just as there are top spenders, like Alaska, who rank very poorly.  However, as one more closely examines the data it becomes apparent, those schools spending more are getting better results. (source).

This information is from 2009, and while I am writing this only 5 years later, the economic reality within our country is quite different.

Within the state of Colorado, for example, there has been a $1 billion "negative factor imposed upon Colorado K-12 public education since 2009."  (source).  The superintendents in 168 of 178 public school districts in the state of Colorado.  The reduction in funding has been sighted as causing increased class sizes, less individualized attention, and falling behind in technology in the classroom.

While complete info-graphs that include test scores in conjunction with graduation rates were challenging to find, I was able to find graduation rates per a state separately.

I also was able to find 2011 statistics for Math and Science scores:

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2011/07/06/best-worst-states-for-math-education/

With these two maps combined, one can start to see how some of the higher performing school have slipped to average or a bit below where they were before.

School districts have better programs and have worked well within the cuts, but it seems that it is becoming more challenging to place new measures, also an idea mentioned by the Colorado Superintendents.  Schools successfully cut the fat, but they now need more finances to build what they have created.