Lawsuits challenging inequality in education spending have already overturned many state public-education-funding systems, and many more could be overturned. The equal-spending argument is based on unwarranted assumptions that lead to a series of foregone conclusions. A comprehensive analysis of Missouri public schools was used to study the equal-spending argument. The first unwarranted assumption is that there is a direct relationship between per-pupil expenditures and the quantity of education provided to students. The second assumption is that there is a direct relationship between spending and the quality of education. The third assumption is that spending levels also correlate to student learning and achievement. The fourth assumption is that urban school districts suffer most from unequal education expenditures. The fifth assumption is that low-spending districts pay more in taxes but receive less educational benefit. Each of these assumptions is examined in detail, and it is concluded that data from Missouri and the nation do not support these assumptions. (JPT)