California Educational Funding and Cognitive Dissonance

I'm not nearly as pessimistic as the guy in this article: http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/06/08/how-a-teachers-rally-made-me-anti-education/?singlepage=true

However, I do have two simple questions that need to be answered before I would increase donations or approve of higher taxes to pay for greater educational resources...

a) prove that existing funds are being spent conservatively, well, and smartly on those things that have the greatest impact on student achievement. Also, graph the percentage of overall revenue going to school overhead versus teaching over time, and that the overhead is not growing or consuming an unhealthy percentage (in overhead, one should also include the costs of any benefits/etc given to staff that are above/beyond required to find quality teachers in a non-union environment).

b) Quantify the benefits of each additional $ donated/taxed versus student achievement - show that adding $ to the system the way it is will have greater results than otherwise reorganizing where existing funds are being spent. Are we already at the point where additional donations is on the diminishing returns side of achievement?