School systems that spend more money per student get better educational results. Having better books, lunch food, computers, teachers, and exercise facilities helps students educationally/mentally propel themselves above their peers at schools who spend less per pupil. Students are best off when their school careers have extra finances invested in them.
Local school systems need more tax revenue so they can spend more money per student and get better test scores, smaller class sizes and better facilities. It's a no-brainer that you get what you pay for. School districts that don't get a lot of money won't do as well compared to districts who get more property tax revenue.
Schools that spend more money on each individual student do tend to get better educational results. With that in mind, schools can't practically spend tons of money per student in most cases. The fact of the matter is that schools need to maximize spending without overexceeding their preset budgets each year.
What is spending money per student? So often, especially in the US, money is thrown at districts in the name of helping children that will ultimately be spent on nice but educationally useless structures (beautiful buildings, Olympic class swimming pools etc.). People need to spend money in a smart way, rather than just assume adding it will help.
No, school systems that spend more money per student do not get better educational results, because more money alone does not make a difference. If a superintendent is paid $300,000 instead of $100,000, that is not going to make a 4th grader learn faster or better. Teachers need to focus on the basics, not on fancy gadgets and the latest educational fad.