Par for the course
First of all, they claim that "Texas spends nearly $10,000 per student." According the latest statistics (from 2003) from the state's education agency, that figure is actually less than $7,000 per student (click here, see line 67). But why concern ourselves with mere facts? They're so unnecessary.
The WSJ wrote that "the judiciary has flatly rejected the core doctrine of the education establishment that more dollars equal better classroom performance." Really? Justice Hecht, writing for the majority, stated: "Public education can and often does improve with greater resources, just as it struggles when resources are withheld." Soudn like a flat rejection to you?
I could go on at length with other distortions in the editorial but you get the idea. It's a shame that facts -- and the words of the actual decision itself -- are so irrelevant to the WSJ. They have a point of view that I, of course, disagree with, but it's hard to even consider an opposing viewpoint when the opposition uses distortions as willfully (ignorantly?) as the Journal did.
It's an awful editorial that lacks evidence to support its claims. But then, what more would you expect from the Wall Street Journal editorialists? It's par for the course for them.